Sherlock - The Hounds of Baskerville - An Episode Review

The Sunday beginning this week revealed a new episode of Sherlock to those of us watching. I was not among those of you who did watch. Therefore, I only got to see it yesterday, rather late at night, via my DVR. I was glad I stayed up. It was great.


Watson and Holmes at Dartmoor, in search of a big dog.

 Sherlock and Dr Watson are presented with a new case: A possible murder that took place twenty years ago and tales of strange creatures on the moors at night. Henry Knight was just a boy when his father was killed, but he is still terrorised by nightmares of the dog that he believes took him.
   His interest piqued not by the case but by unusual word choice, John and Sherlock travel to Dartmoor, where tales of a giant 'hound' run wild. The locals (and a documentary, too) seem to think that the source of the canine terror may be Baskerville, a top secret military reseach facility where they are known to experiment upon animals.
   Sherlock is up against the military (though they don't know it), a giant dog (maybe), and his own senses...

I must say with conviction that this is, in my opinion, the best Sherlock episode ever aired to this date. 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is a classic crime novel that gave rise to the most cliched phrase ever to be found in a murder mystery ('The butler did it!'). Normally, it would be a feat to adapt it to the screen so that it worked as well as it has. The BBC pulled it off. Congratulations to Mark Gatiss for his achievement.
   The beauty of the translation here is that all resemblances end with the title, the hound and Baskerville as a recurring word, and indeed it is a recurring word used as a name. The title, 'The Hounds of Baskerville' is in itself brilliant - it marks itself out as unique while leaving in the close link with the original tale. The same went for 'A Study in Pink' (Conan Doyle's version being 'A Study in Scarlet') and the brief appearance of the words 'The Speckled Blonde' as a title to a post on John's blog (a parody of 'The Speckled Band', of course). Aside from the title, the incorporation of Baskerville as a place rather than a family name works exceedingly well as a link as opposed to an actual point of interest throughout the story. Of course, the hound is the essential link to the story to keep it as an adaptation rather than a cleverly titled trick programme pretending to be something it's not. Thank the heavens, it's there and mostly unchanged. There are differences though. I'm not divulging them at this time. You can watch it yourselves if you want to know what's going on.
   I should probably stop raving and get on to the actually review, yes? Good. I'll begin with the plot.
   The plot is excellent. A death from twenty years back haunting the victim's son is a good way to start, and certainly begins a case worthy of Sherlock Holmes. The town where Henry Knight (the victim's now grown-up boy) lives is very close to the site of a military experimentation facility where animal research and genetic experimentation is known to take place. The source of many rumours, it is rumoured that an escaped experiment - a giant dog - roams the woods. Henry believes it to have killed his father, and is in therapy trying to forget his experiences. Sherlock is certain that the hound does not exist, but a night in the woods makes him unsure - and gives him his greatest clue. I like clues. Clues are what makes a mystery solvable to anybody thinking in the right ways. The Editor would do well to remember this. (Hint, hint.) I like to solve the crime before Sherlock. It makes me feel that the plot has actually been written down. Like in a script. Which, rather obviously, it has.
   Anyways, the plot is the best I've ever seen ever Mark Gatiss write. Then again, I haven't seen everything they've written between them. (Did you notice Mark Gatiss as Mycroft? If you didn't, then that's terrible.) I loved it. Thanks, Mycroft.
   The characters were also excellent. As per usual, we saw some good acting from Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, alongside a reappearance from Rupert Graves as Inspector Lestrade and Russell Tovey as Henry Knight. A rather recognisable cast of good actors, I think. The return of Lestrade was something of an amusing event, considering the conditions of his return. Henry Knight was a good character generally - a damaged guy still terrified by the memory of the night his father died. It seems that most of the characters are rather believable, unless you happen to be in the police force and know that people and crimes just aren't like that.
   I think that's all I can say about the episode in general, apart from maybe that the screenplay itself was brilliantly done and that the sets were first class. And now, the ratings.

The ratings. The make-or-break of most movies and TV programmes when real critics are involved. Those critics work for mainstream newspapers. I work for myself.
   I'll give this a well deserved nine out of ten (9/10). Excellent plot enhanced by brilliant screenplay and good acting, it makes for a good use of ninety minutes of my time. It would make a good use of your time too. In other words, watch it! In fact, watch the whole series.
   Which reminds me... This coming Sunday sees the return of a certain James Moriarty as the second series of Sherlock comes to a close. Look out! The consulting criminal's coming out!