Sherlock. Series 2, Episode 2: "Hounds of Baskerville"
After recovering from the mind-blowing first episode of the second series, I have finally gotten my bearings together, giving me a clearer analysis of this second episode. And one thing I noticed was how diferrent it is.
1. Different title sequence
I should've mentioned this in the previous episode's review, but like I said, I was too blown away. So I'm mentioning it now. The title sequence is slightly different from series one. Well of course, this is a different series, so what did you expect? Wait, why did I even mention that? Okay, moving on...
2. Different style
The more discerning viewers among you might realize that this episode has a noticeably different style compared to the previous one, which was penned by Steven Moffat. That's becasuse "Hounds of Baskerville" was written by this series's co-creator Mark Gatiss, who also plays the adorable Mycroft Holmes. This episode is not as flashy as the Moffat episodes, nor does it utilize the "plant and payoff" narrative technique as much as Moffat does. Gatiss goes for straight-up storytelling. I am not saying at all that Mark Gatiss is an inferior writer; I'm just saying that the difference between the writing styles of Gatiss and Moffat are more pronounced now than they were in the first series. Just in case you've forgotten, Moffat wrote "A Study in Pink" while Gatiss did "The Great Game", and their writing styles were quite similar back then.
3. Different look
If you've noticed that this episode seems to have a different visual feel to it, that's because the action takes place not in urban London, but in the beautiful English countryside.
There are no buildings, far fewer people, and sparing use of technology. Beautiful as this place is, this is not the natural habitat of Sherlock Holmes, and we can safely predict that they will be back in Baker Street for next week's episode.
4. Different story
The great thing about this show is that it is loosely based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and the operative word there is "loosely". I've just recently re-read the original The Hound of the Baskervilles, and I had no problem with spoilers of any kind. That's because the BBC version is nothing like the literary canon, except in essence and spirit. Which is a great thing, actually, especially for die-hard fans of the canon. Baskerville is now a place instead of a person. Dr. Mortimer is now a woman.
I was expecting to see Sherlock's infamous drug use, though, but instead we get to see him settling for second-hand smoke like a pathetic junkie.
All in all, great episode. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are at the top of their game. My only problem here was the hound. It was crappy CGI, to say the least. But I don't want to spoil it for those who want to see the hound for themselves. So I leave you with a glow-in-the-dark rabbit instead.
Sherlock (Series 2, Episode 2). UK. 2012.
Rating: Eight point four out of ten.
*GIFs by me
You may also want to check out the review of Sherlock Series 1.
1. Different title sequence
I should've mentioned this in the previous episode's review, but like I said, I was too blown away. So I'm mentioning it now. The title sequence is slightly different from series one. Well of course, this is a different series, so what did you expect? Wait, why did I even mention that? Okay, moving on...
2. Different style
The more discerning viewers among you might realize that this episode has a noticeably different style compared to the previous one, which was penned by Steven Moffat. That's becasuse "Hounds of Baskerville" was written by this series's co-creator Mark Gatiss, who also plays the adorable Mycroft Holmes. This episode is not as flashy as the Moffat episodes, nor does it utilize the "plant and payoff" narrative technique as much as Moffat does. Gatiss goes for straight-up storytelling. I am not saying at all that Mark Gatiss is an inferior writer; I'm just saying that the difference between the writing styles of Gatiss and Moffat are more pronounced now than they were in the first series. Just in case you've forgotten, Moffat wrote "A Study in Pink" while Gatiss did "The Great Game", and their writing styles were quite similar back then.
 |
| Even their use of on-screen text is different. |
3. Different look
If you've noticed that this episode seems to have a different visual feel to it, that's because the action takes place not in urban London, but in the beautiful English countryside.
 |
| Not Middle-Earth. |
There are no buildings, far fewer people, and sparing use of technology. Beautiful as this place is, this is not the natural habitat of Sherlock Holmes, and we can safely predict that they will be back in Baker Street for next week's episode.
4. Different story
The great thing about this show is that it is loosely based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and the operative word there is "loosely". I've just recently re-read the original The Hound of the Baskervilles, and I had no problem with spoilers of any kind. That's because the BBC version is nothing like the literary canon, except in essence and spirit. Which is a great thing, actually, especially for die-hard fans of the canon. Baskerville is now a place instead of a person. Dr. Mortimer is now a woman.
 |
| "Don't even think about it, John." |
I was expecting to see Sherlock's infamous drug use, though, but instead we get to see him settling for second-hand smoke like a pathetic junkie.
 |
| Would've been funnier if this was marijuana smoke. |
All in all, great episode. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are at the top of their game. My only problem here was the hound. It was crappy CGI, to say the least. But I don't want to spoil it for those who want to see the hound for themselves. So I leave you with a glow-in-the-dark rabbit instead.
 |
| "Ta-da!" |
Sherlock (Series 2, Episode 2). UK. 2012.
Rating: Eight point four out of ten.
*GIFs by me
You may also want to check out the review of Sherlock Series 1.
0 comments :
Post a Comment