Chatting with a pal on the phone tonight, and there’s this audibly vicious dog with a terrifying, thunderous bark going nuts next door to her. It sounds like it’s the size of a Buick.
Her: “That dog does this every night. It is such an asshole.”
Me: “It’s the Hound of the Asskervilles.”
What can I say about the “Sherlock” Christmas special, “The Abominable Bride?” Extremely little, for fear of spoilers.
I will say that I loved it — I’d rate it a perfect 10, as I would just about any episode of this amazing TV show. Also, as good as the trailer was … I can say that it offers much more in its story than you’d expect.
I’d also say that it strongly, strongly parallels a movie that I happen to love — right down to its surprise plot device, key character interactions, and a symbolic act by the main protagonist in the climactic scene. The similarities are just too much for this to be a coincidence — it’s just got to be a well done (and a damn fun) homage. It’s unexpected, too, as the film I’m thinking off probably appeals to a different fan base. “The Abominable Bride” also cheerfully skewers another excellent recent film and the twist employed there. [My blog posts link automatically to Facebook. If you see this via my page, then PLEASE do not name the movies you think I’m talking about.]
There’s some terrific acting, especially between Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and our main villain. And the dialogue is as sly and superbly delivered as always. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a new episode of “Sherlock” and not laughed out loud at least once. The stronger, more assertive John Watson (Martin Freeman) that we see is damn terrific. (There’s a compelling and sensible reason why this iteration of Watson seems a little different than our usual mild anti-hero, but I just can’t say why.)
My quibbles were wholly forgivable. I thought that the Victorian versions of Molly Hooper (Louise Brealey) and Mycroft Holmes (Mark Gatiss) were just so cartoonish that they seemed right out of a “Saturday Night Live” sketch. It “took me out of the movie,” and hampered my willing suspension of disbelief. It felt more like farce and silly sight-gags, instead of the dry, dialogue- and character-driven humor that the show is known for.
I also though that the climactic scene occurring among three primary characters, felt a little … off. Was it just not staged right? Was the pacing off? Maybe I got the sense that I was looking at a soundstage? I’m not sure.
Finally, I am an inveterate horror movie fan, and I might have liked to have seen the director and screenwriters play up the horror story elements just a little bit more here. The mystery for this episode was a jewel of an opportunity — a garish, fearsome “ghost bride” that assassinates men. It could have been just a little scarier, given that story. I know that “Sherlock” is not a horror show, but its creators did just fine in making their adaptation of “The Hound of the Baskervilles” both a bit frightening and a proper mystery.
But, again, those are just forgivable quibbles. This show remains the best thing on television!
[Update: there’s a direct reference to “The Five Orange Pips,” but we see little parallel with the story shown.]
“He said that there were no traces upon the ground round the body. He did not observe any. But I did – some little distance off, but fresh and clear.”
“Footprints?”
“Footprints.”
“A man’s or a woman’s?”
Dr. Mortimer looked strangely at us for an instant, and his voice sank almost to a whisper as he answered: “Mr Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!”
— from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “The Hound of the Baskervilles”
It’s indeed set in Victorian London — I guess this means, of course, that it will have no continuity with the regular program. (It seems like a show like this wouldn’t resort to something as campy as a dream sequence.)
The clip here is only a minute and a half, but it’s great fun seeing Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman in the classic Sherlock Holmes setting. The props, costuming and the set look terrific. I guess they needn’t have altered the building facades on “Baker Street” if they are period buildings?
It’s funny too. When talking about Watson’s accounts, Sherlock says that he is “hardly in … the dog one.” If you’ve ever read “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” Holmes actually is absent for much of it, with Watson investigating.
The story doesn’t suffer from Holmes’ lengthy absence — Watson is a great reader surrogate, and the novel still a fun, moody, creepy mystery. And it made THE MOORS nice and creepy a hell of a long time before “An American Werewolf in London.” (Stay off them, by the way.) Read it on a park bench on a late Autumn, gray-clouded day, with a decent overcoat and some strong coffee. That’s how I did it.
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 