THE LEGEND HAS LANDED... "SHERLOCK – THE ABOMNIBAL BRIDE"

Well, it’s finally here. And oh boy, where we waiting for it. It has been a whole three years since the last “proper” season of Sherlock after all so like all the fans I pounced on the show the day it emerged blinking onto the TV screen. Oh it was fun. It was exciting and challenging and all the good things we like about the Sherlock shows… So was I content then, did I give it a full thumbs up? Um well… Not quite…

So let’s start at the beginning. The Abominable Bride  seems to be set, for all intents and purposes, in an alternative universe to our modern friend. A sort “how would it go if they were actually Victorian” type deal. And it is a story tinged with a bit of horror no less – supposedly the story of a bride who comes back from the dead to kill, first her own husband but then men who mistreat their wives pretty much everywhere. Naturally, even in Victorian times Holmes is not about to fall for the whole “ghost bride” deal, even if Watson himself is on the verge (but ehem, not quite)of believing the supernatural. But the whole supernatural aspect notwithstanding, there is a lot more to this case than first meets the eye… It may even – God help us – even tax our favourite television detective a tiny bit…

As you all know, I am as bigger fan as the next person of complicated storylines. I have often thrown my toys out of the pram when the story is too simple. But there can be a little too much of a good thing. Especially complications. Now, the storyline set in Victorian times itself, I have no trouble with. Nor do I have issues with the implied supernatural element.  After all  I am a bit of a horror fan (or have become so over the years – psychologists, weigh in lol) and I need to say this episode of Holmes has some quite strong chill credentials. By no means prohibitive for sensitive souls but notable. In a good way.      That’s what we like about the Sherlock series – completely logical and real, yet tooth-grindingly fiendish and very hard to solve without being Holmes (or, you know, a member of the cast with an actual script to hand). Besides if you are watching a whodunit, there needs to be a degree of challenge in answering the question otherwise there really is no point – take it from someone who spends an embarrassingly large chunk of her life on whodunits.

Ok, herein begin to lie spoilers so take head. Moving on, I could even buy the whole “first level” of tying in with the modern Sherlock. You know, it was all a mental exercise all along. And the whole episode ends with some very interesting crumbs dropped about the coming season so you know, good job on whetting our whistles. The bit where it does not work for me is when Holmes basically suddenly becomes able to travel into his “mind palace” at will, have long and entertaining chats with himself. In fact, his subconscious mind is so complicated and so developed that it can set him puzzles his conscious mind has trouble solving. Though of course logic sort of dictates that he SHOULD be able to solve it by definition – it is after all a puzzle he himself created. It’s a very interesting case of split personality if he couldn’t. It sort of mirrors the film Inception. And at a push it could have been argued away by saying “Oh well, you always knew his mind was different”. And I will concede to the fact that it basically is a prolongation of lucid dreaming. But I don’t know… I almost feel as if they have tried to show us how the goose that lays the golden eggs works. But in (proverbially) cutting Holmes open, they have slightly undone themselves…

I think part of the appeal of Sherlock has always been that it ultimately makes sense. You know it may well be nigh on impossible to actually happen but it sort of could. It’s not “magic”. Nor is it “mumbo jumbo computery stuff that sounds clever but actually means nothing”. It was always ever, quite simply, an almost completely (but not quite) unbelievable mind. And I am not saying that you should leave everything to faith to be oh so mysterious – especially not in our modern times. My argument is that IF you are going to try to explain any key concept of a series to death, you need to have a solid game plan going for you. Especially when talking about concepts like logic and the mind – because if you don’t get those arguments to make sense, there is a danger that you, ironically enough, seem to be unable to make sense of what is basically heightened common sense. There was absolutely no need for complicated party tricks methinks. We could just as well have left it to be inexplicable. In its current state, it have worked better.

Hopefully this was just a party trick for Christmas and we won’t have prolonged stays in Holmes’ mind palace in the upcoming season. I have a feeling we will be back to business as usual when the time comes though. After all, this is sort of what the first of January is all about no… A sort of netherworld between the new year and the old one when you sort of loll around on the couch, try and get your act together and mentally prepare for the year to come. I’m sure they will do better on the “real thing”.

THE IMITATION GAME - BECAUSE LIFE IS STRANGER THAN FICTION

Biographies, extraordinary true stories, stories of overcoming adversity… All much beloveds of Hollywood and the awards season – and we did see quite a few extraordinary ones come out this year, that’s for sure… And although it ultimately only got he "little gold man" for Best Writing, the one that actually – in one way or another – had the most tongues wagging all over the world was The Imitation Game…

One of the pieces of headline news was the gay rights campaign Benedict Cumberbatch has started, aiming for the pardon of all the men, alive or deceased who were convicted “of homosexuality” like Alan Turing.  Another was the outburst Cumberbatch made concerning racial equality in the film industry, which in turn created a whole new discussion in its own right… And indeed, what is the point of art if it does not force us to think, to feel and to change… But before we get to all of that, let’s take a look at the man, his life and the film that was made about it – for indeed, the fear at this point is that we may well lose the film itself in the discussion surrounding it!

The story is, as we all know, that of Alan Turing. Nobody was sure what to make of Turing in school. To call him an odd duck was to understate the fact, nor was this simply a faze as his “Alan-ish” behaviour just gets more pronounced as he grows older… However, if he is odd, Alan is no fool as he shows an absolute genius for mathematics and a great personal interest in codes and cyphers. So naturally when, during the Second World War, the Germans come up with the seemingly undefeatable Enigma code, Alan turns up at the door of the Ministry of Defence and explains that he is probably the only person who can decode it. Alan is anti-social, infuriating in fact almost completely impossible to work with as far as his colleagues are concerned, but they quickly realise something else… He may also be right…

The rest, as they say, is history… Turing had, in actual fact, discovered the first “computer”. The very thing I am writing this review on right now. The thing you are very probably reading it on – be it a telephone or a laptop… One does wonder if, when he first “discovered” Christopher (the name of the first computer) Turing realised what a huge chunk of everyday life he had, in fact, shaped… (He had a truly extraordinary technical mind, so in actual fact he may well have done). I think it was quite well timed and quite appropriate in all, we do live in the internet generation and it’s not such a bad thing that we find out how it all began…

The thematics and the discussions it will start aside, you will get annoyed with bits of this film. Oh sure, Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely brilliant from beginning to end, as is Keira Knightly who uses the characters warmth to play an absolutely lovely contrast to Turing who is, for lack of a better description, all odd corners and elbows sticking out… Looking back and reading descriptions of Turing, it is quite clear that he was very probably somewhere on the autistic spectrum. However the film does not fall into the trap of harping on the fact that he was some sort of autistic savant. This kind of diagnosis was quite rare at the time, so we are simply presented with the facts and left to draw our own conclusions. What the film does do however, with annoying Hollywoodiness, (yes it’s a word. I have just decided it’s a word, so it is a word. Henceforth) is repeat ad nauseum  the adage that “Sometimes it’s the people you think the least of who accomplish the most extraordinary things”. Once would have been more than enough. Twice if you guys really wanted to push it. You didn’t need a character saying the phrase every 20 minutes. The audience is not entirely stupid and we are quite capable of seeing that Turing is overcoming some truly spectacular demons and coming in, as the underdog, “winning the day”. Also, I didn’t “get” the cutaways to Turing running. I mean don’t get me wrong, Cumberbatch running and showing off his muscles is always a welcome sight to my sore eyes. I just didn’t get what they were doing in the story. Apart from clearly visualise Turing’s struggling. Only problem being that Benedict Cumberbatch is quite capable as an actor of showing this to us with no need to cutaways to him running but, you know…

Turing may well have won the day and (indirectly) the war, but his life was cut tragically short, when, after being condemned for “indecency” and forced to undergo chemical castration, he took his own life, aged 41. And it is very, very right that the film should be the starting point and a spearhead for the pardon of all the men that were condemned so unjustly and made to suffer in jail or by submitting to chemical castration and who didn’t have the advantage of being Alan Turing to ease their way to a pardon.

It is a sign of the great quality of the film that it overcomes all the “mainstreamisms” and “spoon feeding” in it to be the masterpiece it is. Part of it is the cast and the true show of talent and dedication we see from them. But it’s main saving grace is of course the strength of the story – a film can have whatever else it wants, if it has a weak story, it is doomed from the start. And it doesn’t get stronger or more unbelievable than Turing’s story…It is realism and the humanity of the whole affair, the fact that Joan Clarke (Keira Knightly’s character). Because not everyone will be able to completely sympathise with an a-social maths genius with autistic tendencies. But a man struggling with a society that doesn’t understand and his own personal demons to fulfil what he knows to be his destiny, now that – on some level – we can all relate to.  

"WIKILEAKS - THE FIFTH ESTATE" - AND WHETHER IT LIVED UP TO EXPECTATIONS...

It was only a matter of time before the films about Wikileaks started pouring out of the production companies I suppose. Julian Assange`s Wikileaks is one of the greatest and most extraordinary information phenomena of modern time. Assange has exposed more corruption and human rights violations than any other media outlet in existence today thanks to his technical skill, his tenacity and determination to get the information ``out there``. In reach for all of us.

But , as this film points out, does that mean he is perfect? Does that mean he has no demons of his own to fight? Does it mean the whole process was easy? The Fifth Estate would argue not. Benedict Cumberbach plays Assange and Daniel Bruhl plays Daniel ??? the two men who basically kicked off the global phenomenon. Daniel gets by and large swept up by Julian`s charisma and the strength of his ideas. He is a very able IT technician with bright ideas and connections to back them up. Julian is, of course, the main driving force behind the whole operation, the one with the inspiration, but well… How to put this… Organization is not exactly his strong point, which is basically where Daniel comes in. Staging an online revolution does, however, come at a cost. Julian has sacrificed anything and everything that ties him even remotely to an ordinary life to get the online revolution going. And as Wikileaks takes its first strides across the information super highway, Daniel is faced with the same choices... Is he prepared to make all the sacrifices Julian made? Or would that be going a step too far?

I imagine quite a few of us were aware that this film was a complete failure at the box office. It was partly why I was intrigued enough to watch it in the first place. I mean with a current and charismatic topic like Wikileaks and Julian Assange and acting greats like Benedict Cumbarbach and Daniel Bruhl, one would assume the film was set to be a massive success. It just goes to show (as if we weren`t aware of it) that the way you handle a story is just as important as the material itself – especially when using visual mediums like film (or indeed theatre). Now the portrayal of Julian Assange is one thing. We do get to know him quite well, and as some of you may have heard, what we see is not exactly complimentary. He is selfish when he comes to his relationships with everyone else, with his mind only on Wikileaks and himself. He has very little consideration, or in fact patience for any idea or happening not pertaining to himself or the cause, and even ``pertinent`` concerns are dismissed if they are not directly in line with his way of thinking. I have no idea if this rather selfish portrayal of the man is entirely accurate but it does make sense in the sense that you have to be more than a little extraordinary to come up with an idea like Wikileaks and this, combined with past traumas, might well make you, well… A little too extraordinary. And herein lies the problem with the film. The only other character we really get to know is Daniel. But apart from these two, the entire pantheon of characters could well be made up of cardboard cut-outs. Of course a film cannot have more than a certain number of protagonists and secondary characters but I strongly feel having two main protagonists accompanied by what largely amounts to a rather over-populated Greek chorus does nothing to advance the film. And, I am sad to say this, but as far as character development goes, in the sense that often in films we find the main character(s) changed and developed in some way at the end of the story, the author also leaves us hanging. Julian Assange is basically the same as he ever was – all be it with a much stronger voice on the internet now – Daniel has developed slightly but only in that he no longer hero-worships Julian and has decided that he cannot sacrifice every single vestige of what he cares for, for this cause. The rest of the cast we barely get to know so we cannot really comment on. The rather disconcerting result is that the film reads a bit like a documentary played out by pre-formed ``types`` of Hollywood` s Golden Age. And while the documentary-like approach to the film was unavoidable given the nature of the subject and how recently the events portrayed took place, that is no excuse for the shallowness of the characters we see on the screen. I mean, even in the case of Julian Assange, the most developed character in the film, it doesn`t take an expert to see that Cumberbach has basically been asked to take his famous Sherlock Holmes character and adapt it to the world of IT. This is not to say that Cumberbach does a bad job of it, only that with an actor of his caliber one could have asked him to do something slightly more adventurous and different… That is, after all, a large part of the ethos of Wikileaks.  

The one thing I thought the film did do rather well on was the way they portrayed the online world, the internet itself. I was watching a video in the exact same matter quite recently (check it out HERE) and it was basically talking about the new search in films today as to how best one should portray online transactions on film. Various experiments have been made pertaining to telephone messages  and although we do have variations, critics seem pretty unanimous in naming the style as used in the BBC`s Sherlock  (where the messages usually free-float across the screen in proximity to whoever received it, in a font similar to the one used on our phones) is the style to keep to. The internet however, and chatting is yet to find its on screen avatar. I am not going to indulge myself with lengthy descriptions and let you guys discover the whole deal yourselves but I will just say that I like it. I am not sure it will end up as the definitively accepted ``thing`` (I mean, as ``definitively accepted`` as these things get) but I definitely think it`s on the right track.

In short, I was rather disappointed with The Fifth Estate. My only consolation is, I am sure other films with different and better interpretations of the topic are bound to surface as this is one historical phenomenon no one is about to forget in a hurry. Shame one can`t say the same about the film. 

THE UNEXPECTED JOURNEY CONTINUES : "THE HOBBIT 2: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG"

Hehehe. I literally squeaked when I saw this on the in-flight entertainment on the way back from Japan. I missed this one. I don’t know how it happen – well I do. I wanted to see it in 3D or IMAX. One wants to save up, make it an occasion, go with friends. But as it often happens when you try and “overcomplicate” things I just couldn’t organise it somehow – and then, as it were, it was gone. So now that we have given in and watched the film on a tiny in-flight entertainment screen,  what can we say about the second half of our unexpected adventure?

Well, our party has crossed the Misty Mountains, but that is by no means the end of their troubles. They have to get through the infamous Mirkwood Forest to arrive at the human settlement at Lake-town, all this in time for the one appointed day where the secret door to Lonely Mountain can be discovered. And even then, although it seems to be a simple matter of Bilbo fulfilling his contract, well, it’s easier said than done. I mean, we’re talking about finding a single magical stone in an unimaginably large hoard of treasure, without waking out a sleeping, terrible dragon.  And all of this would have been a good deal simpler if Gandalf had actually stayed with them but he has… Gone off somewhere… Yeah, actually, what’s with that?

So if you’re a fan, you know exactly where we are in the story – isn’t it getting exciting! This chapter of course introduces us to Legolas. And on a side-note I had completely forgotten how much of a proverbial “badass” Legolas was. Watching him and Tauriel fight was definitely one of the highlights of the film for me. I know , I know, I moan a lot about special effects and the excessive usage thereof, but come on. We are watching this film so we can be transported to a magical world of elves, dwarves and hobbits. Movie magic literally goes without saying. And come on – most if not all of us rather likes the elves. (Oh yes we do. )And I (still) have nothing but praise for the magical world Peter Jackson has created for The Hobbit. It is not quite the same reaction I had to the Harry Potter films. For those, bizarrely a large part of the characters and settings looked almost as if they had been plucked directly from the inside of my head (the one notable exception being Lupin – he was so unlike what I had imagined it actually upset me and made it hard to concentrate on the film for a short while, but that’s a completely different story). But this world is so beautiful, so organic and so sensitively created that even if I (probably) didn’t quite see it like that myself I literally can’t imagine it being any other way. Just open the door and step right in.

Acting-wise, of course everyone is on point. I find it hard to imagine Sir Ian McKellan as anyone OTHER than Gandalf and Martin Freeman is the perfect everyman trying desperately to keep up with the otherworldly madness going on around him. There is a certain “Britishness” to his acting that I think really “makes” Bilbo. Not least, it mustn’t be forgotten, because Tolkein himself was British – so surely that fits? And of course we have a few new additions to the “family”. The most talked about was, without a doubt, Smaug, voiced over by Benedict Cumberbach. Firstly, I genuinely wouldn’t have known it was him if the fact hadn’t been bandied all over the known world for months. Ok that sentence looks weird but you know what I mean. It doesn’t sound like him. And bizarrely it sounds just as absolutely terrifying as a talking dragon should. And, all humans out there (ehm) we finally have someone representing us too! Yay! We finally get to meet Bard (Luke Evans) face to face and we even have an appearance from Stephen Fry as the rather oily master of Lake-town. So basically what we get is a wonderful magical world reconstructed lovingly by Peter Jackson, with a goodly dollop of Britishness and British humour injected in. That’s basically my idea of perfection in so many different ways.

But the thing about a film like The Hobbit is that it is one of the best representatives of a very specific genre. If you like fantasy (you probably couldn’t tell, but I do) you’ll love this. If you don’t, you’ll steer well clear and honestly feel as if you haven’t missed a thing. I don’t blame you. I mean, I don’t understand where you’re coming from at all, but I don’t blame you. It takes all sorts to make a world. I just need a sojourn or two in different worlds from time to time that’s all.

OSCAR SEASON MUSINGS AND A DISCUSSION ON EMOTIONAL CINEMA : "12 YEARS A SLAVE"

Well. With the Oscar® season now officially upon us with the nominations and the dates set, what remains for us movie buffs is to discuss the nominees and put the finishing touches to our own guesses as who this year’s little gold men will go to. One cannot, of course, guess everything. But one thing seems pretty certain from where I’m sitting, judging from all the discussion it has raised alone, 12 Years A Slave will be walking away with some awards on March the 2^nd. So, in my quest to get up to date with the Oscar ®buzz this year, this is where I started.

I just want to add a quick parenthesis here and add: Man, I missed actually going to the cinema! Watching films from home is just so easy these days thanks to various different platforms enabled by 21^st century technology. I have, in the process discovered one of my favourite cinemas to date : The Screen On the Green in Angel. I loved the “double seaters” complete with little foot stools for couples, the café / bar INSIDE the screening room itself and the fact that the toilets led straight off the screening room itself – allowing one to nip in and out quickly and discretely J I know I digress but just… The whole experience was great. I mean sure, the film would not be any less great if I had watched it at home in my jammies but… The whole experience was awesome. Seriously. Look up your local independent cinema. Go to it more often. You’ll be pleasantly surprised; especially if, like me, you’re lucky enough to be able to go during “office hours”.

But I digress. The film. Quite. Now, you probably have, if nothing a vague idea of what goes on in the film. But let me quickly go through it anyway. Solomon Northup was an accomplished violin player who lived in New York in the mid-19^th century. He was a black man, but a free man as he was lucky enough to be born in “the north”. And he was living a quiet life with his family, his beloved wife and 2 small children until a business deal that seems almost too good to be true has an unexpected… Backlash… Kidnapped, taken south and sold into slavery, Solomon has to wait 12 years before any real hope of salvation comes his way. In the meanwhile, through his memoires, we follow him move from master to master, plantation to plantation and fight to keep his sanity… And his life…

Steve McQueen and script writer John Ridley use Northup’s autobiography to cast an unblinking gaze on the utter horrors of slavery in the 19^th century. Northup is passed on from pillar to post much like a piece of furniture and virtually no consideration for even his most basic need and comforts. Once on the market, the rest is purely pot – luck. You could end up with a kind and fair master like Ford (Benedict Cumbarbach – incidentally I was so sure for some reason he would be the “mean” master; I think he would make an excellent villain. Oh well. That’s for another film I guess). But even so you had no guarantee that the overseers you were made to work under would be just as kind. Paul Dano is beyond brilliant as Tibeats, Ford’s overseer. Tibeats is a typical, small-minded and mean middle-management figure. You know the type. That particularly mean boss who always has plenty of snide comments but no constructive criticism on your work. The one who is on the lookout to chip off your breaks and benefits whenever he can. Yeah. Except Tibeats can actually kill the people he is overseeing and get away with it. But then… Then he is moved on to Epps (Michael Fassbinder). We, along with poor Solomon, thought Tibeats was bad. Suffice it to say compared to Epps, he is a fluffy kitten with a bow round its neck. But I will let you discover the delightful Master Epps and the way he runs his plantation in your own good time.

12 years a slave will, without a shadow of a doubt, grab you by the gut and not let go until 2 and whatever hours later. I defy you not to cry. Hand on heart, even the slightly “Deus ex machine” ending of the film completely eclipses your attention (I will get to this in a second). At this point, I have actually read reviews that criticise the film, and if not the film, the fact that there is not enough intellectual involvement in films like this and that the "tear jerker" nature of the film is a bit of an "easy way out"  (Click here for a particularly fine example of this school of thought). I mean, there is some truth in this. I will fully admit that even as I sat in the dark crying my eyes out, I knew exactly what was coming in the end and I loved the fact that I was right. And that is not the mindset of an “intellectually engaged” critic of the movie. Lets get back to the Deus ex Machina bit. I mean, ok, I do get that it would take a large dose of chance for Northup to get out of the condition he was in. But still… A chance encounter with a stranger (I’m talking about Brad Pitt’s character) and “puff”, 12 years of agony at an end…  It would possibly be more realistic if, instead of – or possibly after – his reunion with his family, we at least saw something of his struggle in the courts and his ultimate failure to prosecute anyone who had harmed him. But no, the emotional reunion with his family is the end of the film and Northup’s later struggles are only seen in writing on a black screen just before the credits. I mean yes, add all those in too and we’d have a film 3,5 hours long… But would it maybe push us to think more about the political system of the time? One of the reasons Northup couldn’t have justice is the fact that the colour of his skin prevented him from testifying against a white man. Another fact that potentially gets washed away in our floods of tears at the finale.

So. I’m landing on the side that argues that 12 Years a Slave should be less emotional and more intellectual, is that it? Well… That leads me to another question though. Is it the obligatory function of all art to make us think and nothing else? Ah, now there’s a discussion for you. I would argue, no. Sure, art has a duty to educate the masses if nothing else by using the power that comes of being so “widely spread”. But it has another function. To make us feel. Art is primarily an emotional creature and from there springs its beauty; if art didn’t make us feel passionate and involved, if it didn’t sweep us off our feet from time to time, well… All art would be like those French films that are “meant” to make you feel disengaged and give “useful” messages. And we all know how popular those are.

So maybe 12 Years A Slave is more emotional than intellectual. Why is this a bad thing? In a world where racism is a sadly common occurrence, it gives a plain message. A message that we clearly needed reminding, seeing that racism is as common as it is: “Racism is a terrible thing”. “Slavery is a terrible thing” and before anything yes there still are people working in conditions approaching slavery, if not the actual thing, in this funny old world of ours. If we don’t have any “actual” messages, well maybe it’s because we haven’t come that far yet, so to speak. Once we can fully grasp that we should treat each other with equal respect regardless of race, sex, colour and creed we can move onto the complicated stuff…  In the meanwhile though, 12 Years a Slave shouts out its message loud and clear. And you should really, really stop and listen if you haven’t already.

THE (BRIEF) RETURN OF MY FAVOURTE SUPERHERO : "SHERLOCK SEASON 3"

Two years. We have been waiting for two blessed years. They knew we’d wait. They knew we’d “do the time” so they took their own sweet time planning practising and filming. But oh… Oh what an end result. The one thing that really frustrates me about this series is that how quickly it’s all over. I mean, especially for me, because I waited for the whole series to be finished (skilfully avoiding any spoilers pertaining to the finale) and “marathoned” the whole series in a day (at the time this article was written it was still available on BBC I-player for UK residents).  And now… Well I have to wait for another two years I guess… Which reminds me, I should really check if there are any clues circulating as to when the next series will be broadcast…  But anyhow. Before we turn our eyes to the future, let us dwell on the recent past. What did we make of season 3?

So, the first thing we find out – I’m sure it’s not a spoiler at this point – is that Sherlock Holmes is alive. The cynics among us will mumble something about “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. We can’t actually say that this is unfair. That said, we all need a superhero of some sort in our lives (and those claiming that “no, we don’t” are actually in denial). Now, some superheroes are, you know, your average superhero:  Handsome, inherently good, superpowers, saving the world, all that malarkey. Others are well adjusted sociopaths with off-the chart IQs and very poor interpersonal skills. My kind of superhero tends to be the latter. And that says something or other about my subconscious or my childhood but let’s not go there now. Anyway, long story short, superheroes never die. So  Sherlock is back. And he is mildly surprised that actually, life has gone on without him. But once both Sherlock and Watson have got over the shock; there is work to be done; there is serious evil afoot in London. Which is basically why Mycroft had him shipped back to London, I mean, why else would he bother, right?

Basically, what can I say? The series exceeds itself once again in my view. And we have the classic Sherlock tropes running through the tale. In the second series it was Sherlock’s death in a face-off with Moriarty. Ok, there were no waterfalls involved but they are in rather short supply in London. This time round its Watson’s wedding. Now, hand on heart, I was a bit worried about that. I mean, injecting a bit of comedy into an otherwise rather dark and cryptic series is well and good, not to mention necessary, but still. You don’t want it made into a laughing stock. I was, I need to confess especially worried about the wedding episode. I mean ok, for those who haven’t watched yet, one of the three episodes actually takes place at Dr Watson’s wedding. It starts off looking as if it’s going to be one of those epic failures when a very serious series tries to be a comedy for one episode and fails miserably. It’s just a smoke-screen, trust me. Just trust me. Trust Sherlock.

And the finale… Oh my goodness. I don’t want to give you too many details. You know that the whole point of this series is the surprise factor. But there is a truly odious arch-villain that will try Sherlock in ways he has never been tried yet. And you better watch all three episodes very, very closely. Because there is a point in the third episode where you are going to have to trace your way back to little bread crumbs dropped in the first episode. I mean, obviously the series does it for you complete with flashbacks but you know… Just so you know… There is a massive bigger picture. And more than one plot-twist.

All that not enough to tickle your fancy? How about  if I told you we meet Sherlock’s parents? That we get a glimpse at his and Mycroft’s early childhood? What if I told you that, for one split second, we actually see his inner sociopath face to face? I’m telling you… This season is good.

The one thing that might get you slightly is that they do a wonderful, emotionally charged finale. You’re left  with literal tears streaming down your face… Only to find, minutes before the end credits roll down, that they haven’t even waited for the next season to conjure up Sherlock’s “miracle return”. I found it destroyed the flow of the piece slightly but then again… I mean come on. We knew he’d be back. Call it golden eggs, call it superheroes… I guess it was pointless to pretend he was gone for good – because emotionally charged as the finale is, at the end of the day, none of us is really going to “believe” it, are we? So you might as well use the opportunity to give us a taster of what is coming next. And incidentally, judging purely by the little breadcrumb dropped, I’m very curious as to how they are going to “pull that one off”. Oh well. We just have to wait another two years or something to find out… 

THE LATEST TAKE ON A CLASSIC: "STAR TREK – INTO DARKNESS"

I’m a bit old fashioned when it comes to Star Treck. It has to be the original or none at all. By that I mean, you know, the classics. Shatner. Nemoy. Takei. I have all due respect for The Next Generation and Patrick Stewart. But anything after that I tend to kind of shudder at and turn away. I dunno. It’s a personal thing. So when this film came out I sort of shuddered at it as well. But being a massive fan of Benedict Cumberbach, I had to see it as well. Well that and the fact that I’m a massive Star Trek fan. I was %100 sure I wouldn’t like it as much as the series, but then again, I had to see what exactly they had done to it. Well, I wasn’t surprised. I didn’t run from the room screaming, but it isn’t the original. Just saying…

So, we are “at the very beginning” as it were. A young Kirk ( Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Bones (Karl Urban) along with all the other familiar characters for the Enterprise are at the beginnings of their careers.  Kirk is recognised for his talent but seen as too young and impulsive. But his commended planning and bravery come directly into play when an almost unstoppable danger emerges from the heart of their very own organisation. The danger is great, the manhunt will lead the Enterprise into hostile territory and the stakes are very, very high but Kirk is completely determined he will be the one to bring the criminal into justice. Because this time… This time it’s personal.

Now, it’s tough writing this review in a way. I mean ok. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Star Trek is going to take one look at the cast list and go “Oh Benedict Cumberbach is Khan… So why all the mystery??” I mean yes, we (we being Trekkies) know exactly who Khan is. This film is, essentially “how they met”. And a fine job of it J. J. Abrams does too. I think the film is better understood if it is taken as an effort to introduce a new generation to the Star Trek franchise. Put a couple of handsome faces in it, some modern special effects, you know, shake it up a bit. That’s why I’m kinda leaving these people to discover who Khan is themselves. People who know, don’t need much in the way of explaining – right guys?

Thing is, in a sense this is a successful effort. I had quite a few people who knew virtually nothing about the series who went “oh I should look into that” (queue yours truly holding forth for about 20 minutes on how they should really, really, start with the originals, no matter how old they are. I’m not sure if I actually convinced them or physically scared them to be honest… ). Now, I’m not sure if this is me being an old fogy or not, however, I really, really tried to see something “special” connected to this film. I failed. I’m not saying it’s a bad film, not at all. But see, I think I’ve sort of grown out of action – adventure films, unless they have something really, really going for them. This film is typical Hollywood fare. Handsome young men, big explosions, a relationship (were Uhura and Spock actually ever a bona fide couple? I mean yes there was electricity, yes I totally get that people want a “love interest” storyline in there especially since the Spock – Kirk “bromance” may well confuse younger viewers but still… I mean I don’t know. Do we really need a love triangle / interest every single time? Even when it was managing perfectly well without one? The jury’s out).

I mean, ok. I am aware of the fact that this is probably me being an old fogy. I’m probably just comparing it to the series in my head and “finding it lacking”. But if you do enjoy this sort of thing, please watch it. If you’re a trekkie, try and look at it as more of a standalone film loosely based on the characters of  Star Trek. I found that helped me quite a bit…