Home Featured TV Shows All TV Shows Movie Reviews Book Reviews Articles Frequently Asked Questions About Us

Sherlock: A Study in Pink

Sherlock: "The game, Mrs Hudson, is on!"

Sherlock is a reboot of the Sherlock Holmes franchise and is the brain child of Doctor Who head-writer Steven Moffat and The League of Gentlemen's Mark Gatiss. It's also set in modern day London. Sounds awful? That's what I thought. In fact, I was completely prepared to hate this programme. How can anything good come of moving an iconic 19th century detective to the 21st century? Is the character of Sherlock Holmes even relevant these days? More importantly, can his unique brand of deductive reasoning cut the mustard in this modern age of GPS, computers and forensics?

I'm not what you would call a Holmes obsessive, but I do own (and have read), all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's detective stories (both short and long), I'm immensely fond of Granada Television's The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (starring the inimitable Jeremy Brett), and own every episode of the BBC's Sherlock Holmes Radio Dramas (featuring the excellent Clive Merrison). So I'm reasonably familiar with Holmes' world. What I don't like is when production companies take unnecessary liberties with the source material. So it was with some trepidation that I approached Sherlock. I've been hurt before. Guy Richie's 2010 blockbuster, Sherlock Holmes, left me crying in my Shreddies (The cereal, not the underpants). Why should this be any different?

Initially, Sherlock feels a little like Doctor Who -- which isn't surprising as both Gatiss and Moffat are script-writers for the show. So the humour's familiar, as is Sherlock's infuriating sense of self-superiority, and eccentric mannerisms. But the only time travel in evidence is the jump from the Victorian era to modern day London. Benedict Cumberbatch works well as a modern day Holmes; whom he plays with just the right amount of narcissism and empathy. He's untidy, immodest, energetic, sometimes manic, and treats poor Mrs Hudson like she's his House-keeper. Yet Watson -- despite being understandable frustrated by his new house-mate's oddness -- seems strangely as ease with his eccentricities. And just one episode in and Holmes is already asking the diminutive Watson for advice on social etiquette. So even at this early stage, it's obvious that the two men get along.

Naturally, the concept demands a certain amount of mythology tinkering. You can't take a character from the 19th century and just plonk him in the 21st without making some concessions. So mobile phones and computers are in, as are cars and modern police practises; Watson writes a blog rather than for The Strand; and the three pipe problem has become a three nicotine patch problem. (This Sherlock doesn't smoke, and claims not to take drugs.) There's also the the odd vulgarity and occasional innuendo to pep things up, but generally the tweaks feel organic and are in keeping with the change in perspective.

And visually, despite the series being set in modern day London, it does have a curiously Olde English feel to it. The cobbled streets outside Billy's Café and the Georgian windows, all add to that feeling of old world charm. And 221B Bakers Street, with its roaring fire, and the glorious Mrs Hudson (played by ex-Doctor Who companion, Aunt Sally,) makes for a suitably cosy base of operations.

The modernisation of Watson, also feels surprisingly natural. Like the Watson of old, he's a veteran of the Afghan war (obviously, a later war than in Conan Doyle's vision) and, thankfully, Freeman's portrayal of Watson is as far removed from Nigel Bruce's bumbling sidekick as you could ever hope to see. Freeman's Watson is a pensive individual, with a troubled history -- the twist being, rather than being adversely affected by war -- he actually misses it. He craves the excitement, and the adrenaline rush of danger; making him the perfect companion for Holmes.

Through the efforts of a mutual friend, the two men meet. Watson, invalided out of the army, is feeling disconnected and useless and, Holmes -- already a budding consultant detective -- needs an assistant and someone to share the rent. So they move in together. The gay issue is addressed almost immediately, multiple times, and with humour -- but, unlike Guy Richie's Holmes, Moffat's Holmes is refreshingly asexual. He snubs Molly Hooper's romantic advances, mistaking her offer of coffee for an actual offer of coffee -- before going on to insult the size of her mouth. It's not that Holmes hates women -- he's always understood their allure -- he's just never entirely trusted them. And, as he stresses to Watson, he's married to his work.

It was a clever move to remove Mark Gatiss from the credits, that way the big surprise remained intact. Mark Gatiss just had to be Moriarty -- yet, in the end, and somewhat comically, he turned out to be Sherlock's older brother, Mycroft. I do like Mark Gatiss. He's a solid performer, and seems perfectly suited to his character. And, by the looks of things, Moriarty will be featuring in the series. Jeff the Cabbie, despite saying that Sherlock would never know the name of his sponsor, couldn't help but but blurt out "Moriaaaaarty" before dropping dead.

I was perhaps less enamoured with Lestrade and Donovan. Lestrade has none of the confidence, quickness or energy of his Victorian double. His performance in front of the press was desperately weak -- almost pathetic. And him telling Anderson to look away, although vaguely amusing, undermined his authority completely. Holmes describes classic Lestrade as the best of a bad lot, both tenacious and determined, which Rupert Graves' Lestrade definitely is not -- at least, not yet. Sally Donovan also needs some fleshing out. She did little more than name-call all episode.

The speed at which Watson recovered from his limp took some believing -- but it served to illustrate both Watson's suitability as Holmes' side-kick, and Holmes' superior powers of deduction. Holmes was able to deduce, purely from his gait, that Watson's problems were mostly psychosomatic. Watson's pause, before jumping across the rooftop, effectively mirrored his own leap into the unknown. The man he was at the beginning of the episode, and the man he is at the end, are polar opposites. It's as if being with Holmes brings out the best in him.

The conclusion could have been stronger. Was Watson close enough to see both men about to swallow the pills? Would he seriously have shot Jeff the Cabbie without telling Holmes? Would Jeff being a genius have given him any real advantage in a game of chance? Maybe. Maybe not. But the psychological show-down between Holmes and Jeff was worth the price of the licence fee alone. Did Holmes choose the right pill? We'll probably never know, but it was fascinating to see Holmes' near pathological need to be proven right take him down such a dark and dangerous road.

Bits and Pieces:

-- The title 'A Study in Pink' is a play on the title of the Sherlock Holmes novel 'A Study in Scarlet' (on which it's loosely based).

-- In 'A Study in Scarlet' it's Lestrade who suggests 'Rache' may stand for Rachel -- and Holmes who deduces it's German for revenge -- so a nice reversal there.

-- Holmes' website is called 'The Science of Deduction' (as is chapter two of 'A Study in Scarlet').

-- Looks like they're setting up Anthea as a possible love interest for Watson. But what was she fiddling with all episode? A mobile phone or a hand-held game?

-- 'A Study in Scarlet' also featured a cab driver with an aneurysm, and poisoned pills as a means of dispatch.

-- Surely a 'No shit, Sherlock' gag is in order at some point?

-- Why would a Cabbie 'naturally' have enemies wishing to kill him?

-- Watson still possesses a gun, a souvenir, presumably, from his time in the military. (Although I'm wondering whether they even do that any more.)

-- Holmes still plays the violin.

-- I liked the visual representations of Sherlock's deductions. No more having to sit through minutes of tedious explanatory dialogue.


Holmes: “I said dangerous, and here you are.”

Watson: “So why are you talking to me?”
Holmes: “Mrs Hudson took my skull.”
Watson: “So I'm basically filling in for your skull?”

Mycroft: "You're not haunted by the war, Doctor Watson. You miss it. Welcome back."

Holmes: “I'm not a psychopath, Anderson, I'm a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research.”

Holmes: “Anderson, don't talk out loud. You lower the IQ of the whole street.”

Jeff: “There's a name no one says. And I'm not going to say it, either.”

Jeff: "I've outlived four people, that's the most fun you can have with an aneurysm."

Watson: “Who's Moriarty?”
Sherlock: “I have absolutely no idea.”
Also posted at The Time Meddler.


  1. Saw it on Sunday, excellent review Paul.

    I definitely like this take on Holmes compared to the one that Guy Ritchie did.

    Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman do make for a good Holmes/Watson team up.

    Clever use of text messages and nicotine patches in this one. And I so thought for a moment that Mark Gatiss would be Moriarty but that would've been too easy.

  2. hmmm...They manage to transplant the concept of Sherlock really well, and differentiate the characters from the Victoriana-fetishism that tends to occupy too much attention with certain Sherlock fans.

  3. I've never watched or read any Sherlock Holmes stories (unless you count House which i don't) so i watched this with a completely open mind and i thought it was pretty good. Particularly the actor playing Sherlock who's name is just as fab as his characters. I thought the way the writers modernised the story worked really well and I especially liked Holmes love of texting. And as always Martin Freeman was brilliant.

  4. Okay, this actually does sound promising and not at all dissapointing so I'll give it a try. Thanks for review!

  5. Everything related to Sherlock Holmes is very close to my heart, and it’s been done and overdone and done again so many times - often so badly - that it made me approach anything new with extreme caution. That was a case of Sherlock. I wasn’t planning on watching it, but then when I stopped at Billie’s the other night my eyes came across your review and it looked like you weren’t disappointed at all, so I went ahead and watched the first episode, and Oh! My! I totally loved it! It’s fun, it’s entertaining, it’s British, good acting, lovely turn on details (like Watson’ watch vs. Watson’s mobile phone). The only one I am a bit concern character wise is Mrs. Hudson… But both Watson and Holmes, and also Lestrade are so spot on and hilarious.
    Paul, thank you for convincing me to give it a try.

  6. Glad you enjoyed it, Olika. Tom Sutcliffe, writing for the Independent, wrote... "Flagrantly unfaithful to the original in some respects, Sherlock is wonderfully loyal to it in every way that matters." That sums it up perfectly for me.

    Here's hoping for a great season.

  7. I watched this episode back when it first aired, and I absolutely loved it. Transplanting Sherlock Holmes into modern times sounds like something that should be a colossal mess, and yet it works brilliantly. The two actors they have work so well together, and the little tricks like printing Holmes' deductions on the screen make it fun to follow along with his mental processes. I can't wait to see what they do in the 2nd season of this show.

  8. I finally saw this last night, and it was much better than I anticipated, and I'm looking forward to the next two. I particularly liked Freeman's Watson, and how they gave us captions to tell us what Sherlock was deducting. Very nice review, Paul.

  9. A fun bit of television. I have been wanting to watch for a while now... Quite enjoyed! Thanks for the review Paul...

  10. The pill bit reminded me of the brilliant poison scene in Princess Bride - I was so sure the answer was going to be the same as that!

  11. Just watched the episode again. As the cabbie mentioned, surviving four times is not luck. What was his trick? Was he smart enough to know all those times which bottle to push towards the victim? Or (as Emily implied) did he wait until the other person swallowed their poison pill, before spitting out his poison pill?

  12. I also thought it was going to be a Princess Bride thing. I'm pretty sure Sherlock picked the right bottle. The trick isn't which bottle the cabbie pushed forward, but which one he took out first. Think about it. If you were him, you'd pull out the poison pill first, wouldn't you? You'd be all, 'I'm holding a poison pill.' It wouldn't have quite the same punch if you knew what you were holding was harmless.

  13. I also thought of the Princess Bride, and I really wanted to find out the answer to the riddle.

    Another quote I liked was:
    Watson: Where did you get this? "Detective Inspector Lestrade".
    Sherlock: Yeah. I pickpocket him when he's annoying.

  14. I love the original Holmes stories and have read them many times over the years. I was quite willing to have the stories updated to the 21st century, as long as the show was true to the characters.

    I think making Holmes a sociopath totally destroys the character! The canon Holmes is unconventional and has little patience for the social niceties, but he's a GOOD man. In modern parlance, we'd say he's "on the spectrum." Turning him into a SOCIOPATH ... it makes me want to vomit.

    On the other hand, Martin Freeman totally redeems Watson and turns him from the stodgy moron that he's so often portrayed as into a worthy companion for Holmes. Freeman's Watson is a breath of fresh air!

    I surprised myself by continuing to watch this show, not for Holmes but for WATSON.


We love comments! We moderate because of spam and trolls, but don't let that stop you! It’s never too late to comment on an old show, but please don’t spoil future episodes for newbies.