The New Episode of Sherlock

…is absolutely amazing. As good as “The Reichenbach Fall”? Well, not quite, but that’s sort of like asking if “The Departed” is good when compared to “Goodfellas”. Just because one is better than the other doesn’t mean they’re not both great. And “The Reichenbach Fall” is a masterpiece.

But “The Empty Hearse” is a Hell of an episode. The acting, as always, is brilliant, the dialogue is bang on target, and the ending, which had a LOT to live up to, was perfectly paced and satisfyingly climactic. It wasn’t as spectacular as the ending of “The Reichenbach Fall”, but then nothing really can be anyway.

The episode was also, in a nice change of pace from the previous installment, very funny. “The Reichenbach Fall” was disturbing and felt utterly out of control. “The Empty Hearse”, in contrast, brought us back into Sherlock’s world with a comforting familiarity. From beginning to end Sherlock knew exactly what he was doing. There was a mystery and he did indeed need to solve it, but never at any point in the episode did I feel that he was not in total control and wasn’t going beat the bad guys.

I’m not quite sure if we ever actually learn how Sherlock survived the fall. In the once scene where he explains it, the man he’s explaining it to at points out a couple of problems with the theory then makes the very good point that Sherlock had no business discussing things with him anyway. I think that was supposed to be the real explanation, but I’m not entirely sure. Anyway, the explanation made enough sense to satisfy me. There were only so many ways the creators could go with it, and I think they did a fine job.

Sherlock is a brilliant show, and if this episode is any indicator of the quality of the third season then I doubt I’m going to be disappointed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The New Episode of Sherlock

  1. Tried to find your email, too lazy to dig, would like to ask:

    What is wrong with my term “malapapalism”? I simply mean it to denote a malapropism uttered by a pope. In that sense, I think BenY could (by his lights) call B16’s Regensburg Address criticism of Muhammad a malapapalism. I’ve done away with the Pope Guido tag, so I’m curious what other stylistic accouterments detract from my (allegedly) just critiques.

    • Hey Codg, yeah, I don’t post my e-mail. I haven’t checked it in awhile anyway, so if you’d e-mailed me I probably wouldn’t have gotten back to you. You’re fine responding directly though. Anyway, I’ve noticed that the tone of your articles has (in my view) improved. Which is why I said that hey, sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t, and those types of posts I don’t really have a problem with in principle. But “malapalism” just seems to me like a cutesie term you made up specifically to denote Francis’s gaffes. Oh, it COULD mean any Pope, but Francis apparently makes them so often he needs the term. It just rubs me the wrong way, really.

      Besides that, I haven’t been reading your posts as much lately, because you already knew what I thought of a lot of your critiques and us sparring in the comments probably wouldn’t have added much. But even when I skimmed over your site I saw a lot of cartoons and youtube videos and things like that which you like to use when talking about Francis. I get that you have a “laugh so you don’t cry” style, but I find Francis far from a comical man. I notice that despite his more “concilial” tone or whatever word you want to use, he’ll listen to advice but he often won’t take it. Which I find rather interesting.

      Slightly off topic there, but you got me thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s