'Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat's Sherlock departs from its source material.' is a sentence with about as much informational value as 'Grass is green.' or 'Uwe Boll isn't the best film director of all time.', yet it remains remarkable how small a part the underlying Arthur Conan Doyle novellas sometimes play in the British duo's adaptations. "The Sign of Three" is one of those instances, in which a wedding just so happens to include a murder attempt because a bit of zest was called- for after Sherlock Holmes had held a speech for an estimated four days at a stretch. And although I enjoy Sherlock's humorous side, a little less of forgotten forenames and exposed bellies and a little more of suspense and Sherlock's genius would be an advantageous step for the programme - unless it is about to be rebranded as Sherlock: The Sitcom for its fourth series.
Presumably, the grounds for the Lilliputian presence of crime-solving in this episode lie in the writers' resolve to humanise Sherlock in this series. He does still openly ponder the ideal liquidation of the bride groom at weddings and is startled by the mention of 'mingling', but all of a sudden, the self-styled high-functioning sociopath also takes pleasure in ordinary activities such as dancing, considers John his best friend, and takes a vow to protect Mary, John, and their fetus (I'm confident that all parties involved would favour Hamish as its name, regardless of gender). It's an appealing objective considering his persistent buggeriness in social interactions, and Gatiss and Moffat manifest capability through realising it gradually and not without displaying the problems someone as – well – extraordinary as Sherlock Holmes has to come to terms with in the process, but it nonetheless affects the quality of Sherlock.
Though the connection between the two is tough to spot, an extra drawback of "The Sign of Three" resides in a twist as shocking as the end of The Passion of the Christ, viz. it being exactly the two cases Sherlock referred to in his aforementioned speech that become significant in the final third. Whereas that would be excusable, the simplicity in all of that isn't; more precisely: if I can identify victim and offender before Sherlock does, the screenplay of the episode is unlikely to win any awards. Further corroboration for the poor script are one-dimensional supporting characters, more storytelling clichés than wedding guests, and how haphazardly the tranquil reception transforms into a matter of life and death.
As an act of atonement, the episode's three writers (a number that is even more gratuitous considering that the paragons "The Reichenbach Fall" and "A Scandal in Belgravia" required merely one) have come up with excellent bits of humour that could easily prompt one to neglect the rest. Take John's stag night alone as an example, a sequence that had me launching into laughter more often than the majority of actual comedies. If only comparisons of such dimensions could be used to describe the writing and directing
My detective scribblings: »You're going to be incredibly useful.« - I have a hunch that there's more to Janine saying that than Sherlock finding her a proper fling at the wedding. Sherlock's efforts to grin seem to cause him more agony than the torture in "The Empty Hearse". Amanda Abbington makes the most out of her little duties as Mary: just her reaction to the wine is wonderfully amusing. Mark Davis's editing in the wedding dinner scene is stunning, his hasty cross-cutting as Sherlock and John arrive at the military barracks less so. The most disappointing element of this episode was unquestionably the misleading acting credit for Lara Pulver, who appeared in only one scene. There wasn't any evidence of Mr Lensman attempting to kill Major Sholto, and certainly, the New Scotland Yard can't apprehend someone for no other reason than Sherlock Holmes's words. Knowing that, no one intelligent enough to arrange a murder this meticulously would ever admit doing so, which makes this dénouement another illustration of the chaotic writing in "The Sign of Three". Best quote: »And we're having quite a lot of sex.« - I've just glanced through my previous Sherlock reviews and noticed that I haven't praised Louise Brealey's acting at any point, making it high time to do that, since she is absolutely magnificent as Molly.
Presumably, the grounds for the Lilliputian presence of crime-solving in this episode lie in the writers' resolve to humanise Sherlock in this series. He does still openly ponder the ideal liquidation of the bride groom at weddings and is startled by the mention of 'mingling', but all of a sudden, the self-styled high-functioning sociopath also takes pleasure in ordinary activities such as dancing, considers John his best friend, and takes a vow to protect Mary, John, and their fetus (I'm confident that all parties involved would favour Hamish as its name, regardless of gender). It's an appealing objective considering his persistent buggeriness in social interactions, and Gatiss and Moffat manifest capability through realising it gradually and not without displaying the problems someone as – well – extraordinary as Sherlock Holmes has to come to terms with in the process, but it nonetheless affects the quality of Sherlock.
Though the connection between the two is tough to spot, an extra drawback of "The Sign of Three" resides in a twist as shocking as the end of The Passion of the Christ, viz. it being exactly the two cases Sherlock referred to in his aforementioned speech that become significant in the final third. Whereas that would be excusable, the simplicity in all of that isn't; more precisely: if I can identify victim and offender before Sherlock does, the screenplay of the episode is unlikely to win any awards. Further corroboration for the poor script are one-dimensional supporting characters, more storytelling clichés than wedding guests, and how haphazardly the tranquil reception transforms into a matter of life and death.
As an act of atonement, the episode's three writers (a number that is even more gratuitous considering that the paragons "The Reichenbach Fall" and "A Scandal in Belgravia" required merely one) have come up with excellent bits of humour that could easily prompt one to neglect the rest. Take John's stag night alone as an example, a sequence that had me launching into laughter more often than the majority of actual comedies. If only comparisons of such dimensions could be used to describe the writing and directing
My detective scribblings: »You're going to be incredibly useful.« - I have a hunch that there's more to Janine saying that than Sherlock finding her a proper fling at the wedding. Sherlock's efforts to grin seem to cause him more agony than the torture in "The Empty Hearse". Amanda Abbington makes the most out of her little duties as Mary: just her reaction to the wine is wonderfully amusing. Mark Davis's editing in the wedding dinner scene is stunning, his hasty cross-cutting as Sherlock and John arrive at the military barracks less so. The most disappointing element of this episode was unquestionably the misleading acting credit for Lara Pulver, who appeared in only one scene. There wasn't any evidence of Mr Lensman attempting to kill Major Sholto, and certainly, the New Scotland Yard can't apprehend someone for no other reason than Sherlock Holmes's words. Knowing that, no one intelligent enough to arrange a murder this meticulously would ever admit doing so, which makes this dénouement another illustration of the chaotic writing in "The Sign of Three". Best quote: »And we're having quite a lot of sex.« - I've just glanced through my previous Sherlock reviews and noticed that I haven't praised Louise Brealey's acting at any point, making it high time to do that, since she is absolutely magnificent as Molly.