Sherlock: The Hounds Of Baskerville

Sherlock: The Hounds Of Baskerville

Posted on Tuesday January 10, 2012, 14:01 by Stephen Carty in Small Screen

So last week I thoroughly enjoyed the marvellous season two opener of Sherlock, which welcomed the Beeb’s modern day story of Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary sleuth back to our screens with assurance. Like the first season’s opening instalment, it was penned by co-creator Steven Moffat and offered a frequently-breathless plate-spinning act of knotty plotting, dazzling dialogue and Watson-impressing deductions. Admittedly, there were one or two niggles (as Ali Plumb pointed our in his well-reasoned blog piece), but on the whole it was sufficiently superior viewing to result in many critics and industry bods gushing with enthusiastic praise via Twitter and elsewhere.

The problem was, as I sat there afterwards trying to collate my thoughts and play mental catch-up, I began to anticipate what lay ahead (in true Sherlock fashion, floating text explaining my thoughts appeared around me), and found myself wishing that Moffat’s writing credits appeared on every episode. Of course, co-creator Mark Gatiss’ finale last year was a dizzying, event-packed affair, and all three instalments maintained an admirably high standard (other TV showrunners – take note). But for me personally, Moff’s opener was the undoubted peak of season one - speaking as someone who would also argue that the Doctor Who episodes not written by him usually feel like something of a comedown by comparison. Would history repeat itself?

Well, given that The Hounds Of Baskerville inevitably didn’t live up to last week’s new benchmark-setting antics, the answer is, thus far, on its way towards ‘yes’. Importantly though, episode two was another intelligent-written ninety-minute slice of Sherlock and far from a clanger, with Gatiss tackling what is undisputedly Sherlock Holmes’ most iconic and well-known case. While those of us who prefer Moffat’s twisty, turny plot-gymnastics didn’t get quite the same cerebral workout, the well-adapted cocktail of horror and the supernatural played to Gatiss’ strengths as a Hammer aficionado. A more straightforward and linear adventure, the narrative didn’t unfold like a scheme-within-a-plot-within-a-device-within-an-overarching-masterplan, but as a mystery thriller it was still very watchable.

And, as well as managing to generate a genuinely chilling and spooky atmosphere when required, the show’s playful nature was also in joyful evidence. Aside from a few neat gags (LOVED the dogging red herring) and geek-references (such as Watson calling Holmes “Spock”), there was a nice piece of meta-casting in the selection of Being Human’s Russell Tovey (who plays a werewolf there) as the man haunted by past visions of a giant, beastly hound. To be honest, the always-excellent Tovey wasn’t as natural a fit at playing posh as he is at essaying the ordinary bloke (see his flawless turn in the underrated Him & Her), yet he slotted in well amongst a cast of familiar British faces (including Amelia Bullmore and Clive Mantle).

Once again, Paul McGuigan imbued proceedings with a sense of style, but the episode’s most successful moments where those which highlighted John and Sherlock’s friendship. Along with the latter smirking with impressed approval after the former improvised some military patter during their compound infiltration, there was a particularly lovely moment where Holmes admits that he doesn’t have friends plural – just the one. By now, there’s no question that Martin Freeman is a very fine John Watson, but is it just me, or is Benedict Cumberbatch becoming dangerously close to surpassing Basil Bathbone as the most popular Sherlock Holmes? From what I’ve read online, the “Mind Palace” sequence has proved divisive among viewers, but surely it was worth it for the brief inclusion of Elvis?

So, overall not on par with last week’s sizzling opener, but an effective mystery thriller regardless, and that final incarcerated glimpse of Moriarty is surely enough to have us all tantalised for next week’s finale. Which, as Holmes fans no doubt know, is based on Doyle’s eventful short story, The Final Problem. Obviously. But what about you? Did you prefer Gatiss’ more linear take? Or did you hanker for some of Moffat’s hard-to-keep-up-with plot aerobics? As always, let us know below…