The Abominable Bride

Very different from the episodes that precede it but still very enjoyable and well worth watching. I was looking forward to this episode for a full year and I was not disappointed. Now only another year plus until the 4th season...if I overdose now I should be able to sleep until then. Don't go into this expecting to be blown away. The cinematic intensity of the 9 episodes its elder is not present. The depth and complexity of the plot are less structured. However, even though it's not quite up to par with Sherlock episodes of days past, it is still superior to the majority of television programs and I would say enjoyable enough to watch more than once.

What can I say about the "Sherlock" Christmas special, "The Abominable Bride?" Extremely little, for fear of spoilers.

I will say that I loved it — I'd rate it a perfect 10, as I would just about any episode of this amazing TV show. Also, as good as the trailer was … I can say that it offers much more in its story than you'd expect.

I'd also say that it strongly, strongly parallels a movie that I happen to love — right down to its surprise plot device, key character interactions, and a symbolic act by the main protagonist in the climactic scene. The similarities are just too much for this to be a coincidence — it's just got to be a well done (and a damn fun) homage. It's unexpected, too, as the film I'm thinking off probably appeals to a different fan base. "The Abominable Bride" also cheerfully skewers another excellent recent film and the twist employed there.

There's some terrific acting, especially between Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and our main villain. And the dialogue is as sly and superbly delivered as always. I don't think I've ever watched a new episode of "Sherlock" and not laughed out loud at least once. The stronger, more assertive John Watson (Martin Freeman) that we see is damn terrific. (There's a compelling and sensible reason why this iteration of Watson seems a little different than our usual mild anti-hero, but I just can't say why.)

My quibbles were wholly forgivable. I thought that the Victorian versions of Molly Hooper (Louise Brealey) and Mycroft Holmes (Mark Gatiss) were just so cartoonish that they seemed right out of a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. It "took me out of the movie," and hampered my willing suspension of disbelief. It felt more like farce and silly sight-gags, instead of the dry, dialogue- and character-driven humor that the show is known for.

I also though that the climactic scene occurring among three primary characters, felt a little … off. Was it just not staged right? Was the pacing off? Maybe I got the sense that I was looking at a soundstage? I'm not sure.

Finally, I am an inveterate horror movie fan, and I might have liked to have seen the director and screenwriters play up the horror story elements just a little bit more here. The mystery for this episode was a jewel of an opportunity — a garish, fearsome "ghost bride" that assassinates men. It could have been just a little scarier, given that story. I know that "Sherlock" is not a horror show, but its creators did just fine in making their adaptation of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" both a bit frightening and a proper mystery.

But, again, those are just forgivable quibbles. This show remains the best thing on television!

The BBC has been trailing the return of three (okay, four) of its most popular detective heroes in a clever advertisement showing Stella Gibson from "The Fall", John Luther and Sherlock (and Dr Watson). "The Fall" re-starts next week although it is my least anticipated of the three, while "Luther's" comeback was very good but this dazzlingly brilliant episode was the best thing I've watched this Christmas.

The writing really was terrific with a plot that had more ups and downs than a mountain range, more ins and outs than Hampton Court Maze and more twists and turns than a dozen corkscrews, in short it was a triumph. Starting with a Victorian-era impossible murder with an even more impossible murderer, guest appearances by all the previous supporting cast including a massively-bloated Mycroft, surely a homage to Sydney Greenstreet and the return of the master-criminal we've all missed, a premonition of another husband-slaying in a big old house after dark, a recreation of the real Reichenbach Fall climax of yore, an ingenious denouement anticipating female suffrage years later but perhaps the best thing of all was the promise of a new series to come.

As ever, the technical aspects of the production were great, I'm a sucker for the multiple camera-angle, 360 degrees perspective, time-freezing, computer graphics and microscopic zoom shots employed. There was humour a-plenty and hosts of references to the Conan-Doyle original, including, if I'm not mistaken, the first time this Sherlock has ever said "Elementary my dear Watson".

The playing by Cumberbatch, Freeman and Andrew Scott as the three main protagonists was never better. I'm sure there will be Sherlock-oligists who can pick apart the complexities of the plot, which for sure seemed at times like a read-across from Moffat and Gatiss's other re-creation Dr Who, but let them, they won't spoil it for me. This was the best "Sherlock" I've yet seen and sets an almost impossibly high standard for what may come after this.

Doesn't matter if they don't however, this one was so good it really was the perfect after-Christmas present.

Almost the perfect episode until the last 20 minutes. They didn't have to make it so complicated. The story was great , the setting was perfect and the acting as always was impeccable. Not going to go on about the story but just lightly summarize the drawbacks and the SHERLOCK moments. The episode as it stands I feel didn't need to be connected to where we left in season 3. The story and the setting was good enough for it to be stand alone episode. Though I did enjoy the subtle scene references from the main Sherlock. More importantly the episode for god sake just needed have a good solid ending. I am sure most of the viewers would complain about how the makers tried too hard to pull off a "SHERLOCK" ending. It just needed to be enough to quench the beaming desire of the fans for another year as they wait to see their favorite detective on his adventures.

What I did enjoy about the episode is as is the case with every sherlock episode is the dialogs. They take a moment to seep in and when they do: wow. The references to the main series are also enjoyable. For the first 1hr the episode hits the high standards it has set since its inception, but where it does falter is in the last 30 minutes where just needs to wrap it up in good solid way.

No matter for that, Sherlock fans will definitely enjoy it. To sum up, the episode as Moriarty would say if he was to represent the whole series: MISS ME

In a Sherlock Holmes mind trip he is taken back to the 1890s. In a setting very much like that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would have envisaged, Holmes is a private detective, operating out of 221B Baker Street. Assisting him is Dr Watson. They are presented with a very baffling case. A woman, Emelia Ricoletti, publicly shoots and kills herself, only to appear a few hours later and kill her husband. Within the next few months other murders are committed by woman appearing to be Mrs Ricoletti. Even the police are thinking that paranormal activity is afoot. Then Sir Eustace Carmichael is threatened by such an apparition and his wife calls in Holmes and Watson.

The idea of filming a Sherlock Holmes episode in the original time and setting appealed to me. It gave us a taste of what the series would have been like if it hadn't been contemporised. However, at the back my mind was the nagging suspicion that the writers had run out of ideas and that going back to the 1890s was a gimmick, and the series' jumping the shark moment.

Ultimately it isn't as straightforward as an entire Sherlock episode set in the 1890s, so difficult to judge whether it was meant to be a gimmick or not. It ends up much more complex than that, and, to an extent, unnecessarily so. We have many jumps between the 1890s and the 2010s and it seems like style over substance.

However, it is very entertaining. The 1890s murder story is very intriguing and is woven into the overall plot well. The modern day side is reasonably well done, though the Moriarty scenes seemed a bit self-indulgent and overblown.

Overall, not brilliant but a pretty good episode nevertheless.