A Negative Review: Sherlock Series 3 Sucks

Sherlock recovered. Sherlock did not.

Undoubtedly, Steven Moffat's most consistent failure as the producer of Sherlock is his total inability to let characters face the consequences of their actions. In and of itself, this would not be a ruinous flaw (it is still a pretty bad one), but unfortunately, Steven Moffat is also fairly talented at writing characters into corners from which they cannot possibly escape. The point of raising the stakes in a given show is to give the action resonance; in this regard, Sherlock has had several highlights – during the first episode, where Sherlock is about to swallow a deadly pill; in the third episode, where Watson is made to wear a suicide vest; and in the sixth episode, where Sherlock fakes his death. As the audience comes to see the consequences of these actions, all of those consequences contribute in some meaningful way to the emotional resonance that comes with such high tension and stakes. However, with the onset of series 3, this completely stops being the case.

Moffat has a thing or two to learn about high stakes and dramatic resolution – you can't simply raise the stakes in one episode, siphon the corresponding rise in tension for (the intended) effect, but then forget to follow through later on. And by saying all of this, I am trying to show that it's insulting to the audience when a character who just pretended to kill himself and not tell anyone can immediately reconcile with his best friend, whom he kept out of the loop for two years, and avoid any sort of emotional complication. But maybe this is just a John Watson thing, because the latter is the same man who also immediately forgives his serial killer wife without so much as a second thought. Going further, we observe also that Sherlock wears plot-armor when he murders Magnussen, because his exile is rescinded (according to himself) 4 minutes after it begins – and in a true twist of irony, it is so rescinded because Moffat decides he doesn't like the idea of Moriarty being gone from the show anymore, despite having killed him, and, as a result, the build up and resolution of the series 1 and 2 villain is destroyed. It's just such garbage. Characters forget all the nasty things they've done to each other at a moment's notice, and there is no continuity between the episodes on an emotional level. And worst of all, it's become the status quo – so much so that fans of the show are overlooking things in favor of Benedict Cumberbatch playing drunk for a few minutes.

But enough with the structural bullshit; let's have a look at the plot lines on a more basic level. The first episode of the third series is fine, more or less, aside from the deus ex machina ending – and honestly, who really cares, because Sherlock Holmes is the corporeal manifestation of the term anyway. In fact, the first episode is actually quite good – even though it allots most of its time poking fun at the fans of the show, knowing such jokes will be lost on viewers a few years from now, the episode still manages some interesting scenes, with a good bit of character stuff for Watson and his wife, then later Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson and the rest of the cast. The point here is that in lieu of giving the viewer a detective story, the first episode of series 3 at least gives the viewer something. 

This cannot be said of episodes 2 and 3. The physiological impossibility of the would-be murder, which makes up the crime of episode 2, is so absurd that it escapes description – and clearly, up until that second episode, Sherlock was a show that knew how to handle impossible-to-explain scenarios: don't bother. Yet, long after the viewer has guessed the target, as well as the rest of the relevant information, Sherlock goes into another tirade that no one still around still cares to hear, and the whole thing ends up reeking of poor planning – why is it that the crime/mystery component of a detective show is relegated to the last 20-30 minutes? Perhaps the saving grace of the second episode is that, indeed, no one really cares about Major Sholto, so no one questions the implausibility and unnecessary level of complexity of the whole scheme to murder him. And it's not as if Sherlock is incapable of delivering interesting characters and quickly letting the audience familiarize – as far as the first and second episode of series 3 are concerned, Mary Watson is a pretty good character. Instead, what we're left with is some bizarre dubstep remix of the main theme, and editing so choppy it seems to symbolize Moffat's nervous breakdown; seriously, what the hell is up with using the main theme with some stock Windows Movie Maker transition to go between scenes?

The pinnacle of disappointment in series 3, however, comes in the form of the third episode. It's pointless to focus on such plot holes as why Magnussen's men frisk Sherlock and Watson in the latter's apartment, yet miss the gun permitting the plot to advance in the second encounter; yes, it's unnecessary to focus in on the fact that Mary could have merely knocked Magnussen out before shooting Sherlock to avoid having to do the latter entirely; and certainly, I could go on, but the list is probably as long as Mary Watson being a serial killer is ridiculous. Instead, let's consider the idiocy of Magnussen's plan: we are shown that Mycroft's men (and women? That lady who's in charge? The show never bothers) are aware of Sherlock's involvement in the Magnussen ordeal. Supposing Magnussen is as important to Mycroft as he says, then assumably, the MI6 would keep close tabs on Sherlock and his doings – and yet, despite this being as blatantly obvious as it is, Magnussen manages to foresee Sherlock's entire plan, yet gloss over the fact that being the media mogul he is, and even by his own admission, he has no credibility nor proof with which to implicate Sherlock in his national secrets blackmailing-scheme. Who would believe Magnussen? Who would support Magnussen? The squad of MI6 operatives, under the sole discretion of Mycroft, who has no reason to back Magnussen up? Clearly, the latter can already have any one of these characters killed, but apparently doesn't care all that much because even after learning that Mary Watson is the assassin, he does nothing – and similarly, "nothing" is what would happen if Sherlock had merely let Magnussen live; Mycroft  is the most powerful man in the U.K., so surely he has the power to forego charges in the event that Magnussen miraculously manages to prove anything actually took place (a mere 20 minutes before this, Mycroft exercises a similar power when he instructs 3 characters to "forget they ever saw anything"). With that in mind, what did Magnussen really want? To urinate into a fireplace and poke Watson in the face? Why does he care, at all? Why do we? Why did Sherlock even have to kill Magnussen then, in front of everyone, if he was never going to jail anyway? What was the rush? Magnussen had the potential to be the sole villain to ever beat Sherlock, but ended up becoming a cardboard cutout of a Bond villain.

In truth, Magnussen is only even a villain because Sherlock tells us so; he is bad because people say he's bad. There is not a single scene showing him blackmailing anyone, except for some odd bits of humiliation. The worst thing he does is place Watson in a bonfire, but considering the history of this show, this hardly qualifies him as an evil-doer in the face of Moriarty and serial-killer-cabby. Certainly, Magnussen is a  bad guy, but is having the means to blackmail someone necessarily indicative of the eventuality of doing so? An entire episode (series 2, episode 1) revolved around such a character, who had an unrealistic amount of power, yet never once used it – how is Magnussen any different? Why is Magnussen so bad? Why does Sherlock hate him so much? Magnussen is merely a plot-induced villain acting as some kind of amalgamation for all of Moffat's unused villain tropes: a more literal use of the then-cool visual cellphone interface, a sociopathic stare, enormous wealth, and an empty room that everyone expected to be full of stuff (oh, by the way, Moffat, nice going, you idiot – where does Magnussen keep all his nebulous memorabilia, such as the letters?). In fact, compared to Sherlock, Magnussen seems quite the saint: Sherlock lies to everyone he meets, forces an apology out of someone at bomb-point (then laughs about it), sees other characters as tools, and constantly talks about not caring for anyone else in the world. Basically, it's underwhelming to have a sociopath label another character a sociopath and expect it to carry weight.

Anyway, add to this the character assassination of Sherlock having a girlfriend, the fact that we're going to have to deal with a baby in the next series, and you come to realize that Magnussen is the embodiment of Steven Moffat and that fireplace he urinates all over is actually the show.