Den of Geek

Sherlock: The Great Game review

Simon Brew


The modern day take on Sherlock bows out in style, as The Great Game leaves us wanting more. And soon...

Published on Aug 8, 2010


WARNING: THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN THE GREAT GAME YET!

Here's a note to any writers currently pitching a television show, who want to lay down one or two threads to help convince a TV executive to commission series two as soon as possible: watch the last ten minutes of Sherlock.

Because, surely, therein lies a textbook example of how to do it. After spending over four hours building up to the introduction of Sherlock's infamous nemesis, Moriarty, you not only get a really quite unnerving face-off, but you then get left on a great cliffhanger, with so many questions waiting to be resolved. Heck, if I was a BBC executive previewing the episode, I'd be pressing the recommission button right there.

The obvious thread awaiting resolution? Well, it's just how will Sherlock and Watson get out of this one. If Sherlock shoots the explosives, then surely they all go up, and while I'm confident he's got a cunning plan, or spotted something I haven't, chances are there's the best part of a year to wait yet. Gah.

What's more, there's the identity of the people behind those laser sights, too. Who else is hiding away in the swimming pool? And while we're here, what a great place to have such a showdown, and what a wonderful rug-pull writer Mark Gatiss pulled. Even appreciating that some of you will have seen it coming, the tempo of that final scene was just brilliant, and the fact that it stopped, and then suddenly restarted again with the re-emergence of Moriarty, was terrific television.

And while we're talking about Moriarty, just what's going on with his voice? Because if the intention of writer Mark Gatiss here was to put him across as a genius nutter, then the portrayal here has certainly delivered the goods. There's a little bit of the channelling of Heath Ledger's Joker in there, I thought, and yet we've only been given a glimpse, a mere tease, of the character. A cracking tease, too. I'd personally bundle Messrs Moffat, Thompson and Gatiss in a room together right now, and not have them re-emerge until three more scripts for next year have been produced. And mark Moriarty top of their priority list, too.

Yet, The Great Game wasn't an adventure just about the last ten minutes, and interestingly, it didn't follow the same formula as the two stories we've seen thus far. Whereas A Study In Pink and The Blind Banker have given us one case apiece to get our teeth into, here Holmes and Watson have to bash their way through several before they can get to the end of level boss. That means that Gatiss' script doesn't quite have the level of detail behind each individual case, as he instead leaves enough crumbs visible for Sherlock to do his work, but not too much on top.

In some ways, it's not dissimilar to the structure of Angels & Demons, and the subsequent Tom Hanks-starring movie that was based on it. But there's a crucial difference: Angels & Demons wasn't any good, and The Great Game really was.

It helps, for the sake of the narrative here, that this story has come last out of the three, as we're au fait by now with the modus operandi of Sherlock and Watson. We know how Sherlock will read a scene to get his clues, and it's a shorthand that aids the pace of The Great Game. This is far more Sherlock's adventure than Watson's this time too, and the onus is very much on him to do the heavy lifting. That said, Watson has plenty on his plate too, not least his interactions with Sherlock's brother, and also the continuing evolution of his romantic entanglement with Sarah. It's a story that manages to squeeze a lot into its 90 minutes.

It's traditional at this point that we stop to salute the two leads. Appreciating we're hammering home the point week after week, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have been just terrific in the main roles. They've been an inspired casting choice, both as individuals and, crucially, as a partnership too.

Back to the story, then. The cases that the pair work through here are quite dark, and there's an underpinning sense of urgency throughout them, aided by some on-screen graphics of numbers gradually going down. And by the time we get to the end of the adventure, there's little doubt that Sherlock has been tested a lot.

For example, take a look at the minute he has to identify that the painting in front of him is a forgery. The explanation that he comes up with in the end is both brilliant and difficult to spot, and anyone who's managed to guess the resolutions of the previous two stories in advance would, I'd wager, really have struggled with that one. The police must have been relieved they had a consulting detective at hand, at least.

I guess there's a (very) little bit of me that would have liked just a drop more depth to the cases that Sherlock whizzes through here, yet I fully accept that Mark Gatiss' script is terrifically paced, and his balancing act is a very tricky one. As things stand, it's hard to grumble with the quality of episode he's put together, and you get enough to get your teeth into, in the build up to the big finale.

It's hard to grumble too with just how Paul McGuigan's direction makes use of it. I thought his handling of A Study In Pink was just outstanding, one of the best-directed TV shows I can remember seeing in some time. Here, he too has to go a little quicker than he did first time round, but it's again a measured, often-still piece of work, and all the better for it. He lets you see what's going on, and the momentum of A Great Game is hard to fault. Plus, McGuigan's direction of that final scene was utterly spot on.

In short, The Great Game is a very strong end to a series that's been an absolute treat, even better for arriving in the middle of the summer, where quality new television drama is extremely rare. Maybe one of the ramifications of this show's success is that more broadcasters will be willing to give July and August a bit more love. That'd be a great legacy for the show right there.

Still, what's especially wonderful about Sherlock, even putting the terrific cliffhanger aside for a minute, is how brilliantly poised it is. After all, we have meaty characters just three stories in, and there's a wealth of further Sherlock material to attack. I'm quite happy with the thought that I'll grow old watching Cumberbatch and Freeman solve case after case in the ensuing years myself, and I sincerely hope that the BBC commits to a long run of these. My head overrules my heart in wishing that it's kept to three or four stories a year at best and no more (a Christmas special one year would be lovely, too), but as far as I'm concerned, the countdown to more Sherlock starts right now.

To all concerned: congratulations on the new television triumph of the year. Now please go and make some more.

Read our review of Sherlock: The Blind Banker here and A Study In Pink here.

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Noddle 1 August 8, 2010 09:31:05 PM

I shall quote something from my facebook feed that captures my emotions perfectly: "YOU EVIL LITTLE BLOODY BASTARDS!!!!!!!! I HATE YOU STEVEN MOFFATT!" Great cliffhanger, but entirely infuriating. But that makes the best ones, doesn't it?

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Viridis 1 August 8, 2010 09:31:29 PM

That was awesome. Tense, thrilling. The guy playing Moriarty was amazing. I never suspected him! Fantastic plot, but why did he play with Sherlock if he wasn't after the missile plans?

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Vaderwink 1 August 8, 2010 09:32:21 PM

My God, they have to make more! Fantastic!

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Vaderwink 1 August 8, 2010 09:37:21 PM

Also, I was hoping they wouldn't blow it by showing Moriarty and it becoming a disappointing anti-climax - and they didn't! He was excellent. Was worried when Watson suddenly appeared - great double bluff.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By procrastinationathon 1 August 8, 2010 09:47:27 PM

as much of a joyus shared experiance i'm sure other people had, i'm glad i watched this alone, i was grinning like a terp for those last ten minutes. please beeb, can we have some more?

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Noddle 1 August 8, 2010 09:56:09 PM

Took me a minute to realise John had been rigged with a bomb - thought he'd been playing the ultimate game all along! (D'oh!) Loki himself has been given control of two of Britain's greatest icons. This is going to be interesting.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Picard_loves_diplomacy 1 August 8, 2010 10:13:16 PM

I thought this was an excellent episode and hope Paul McGuigan gets to direct all of series 2, given the cinematic style he's brought to the screen.The use of the Bruce Partington story was inspired. I wasn't sure if we'd see Moriarty, or even if he'd be the person carrying out the crimes. Will be interesting to see what they do now that Moriarty has been introduced, given that he was such a hidden presence in the ACD stories.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Geordie2004 1 August 8, 2010 10:19:14 PM

Terrific stuff, might have been even better than the first episode. I'm loving their take on Moriarty, I absolutely agree with Simon that there's a very noticeable shade of Heath Ledger's Joker in the character. The cliffhanger made me mad, though! Go make more! RIGHT NOW.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Katie2333 1 August 8, 2010 10:52:21 PM

This was the best episode so far!!!(hint to make more) in my opinion. Though that cliffhanger i have to admit was a tad infuriating i cant stand having to wait to find out what happens its seriously the most annoying thing about great tv series's. Hurry up bbc and make more!!!!

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By lora4dan 1 August 8, 2010 11:10:32 PM

still shouting "noooooooo" at my telly box :)

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Jez_Noir 1 August 8, 2010 11:57:32 PM

Now I love Moffat & Gatiss as much as the next person on this site, but I am flipping mad at this latest tendency by the BBC to end series' on cliffhangers. What if there isn't a new series? It's a definite possibility. And if it is the case then no-one will ever want to see The Great Game again for it's lack of conclusion. Which is a shame cos other than that it was quite great. But stop this cliffhanger nonsense! (we better get more Luther too, grrrr)

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By explodingzebras 1 August 9, 2010 02:14:13 AM

Sherlock: er...hang on...i've got a great idea...er Excellent, they have just GOT to make more!

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By mark-reed 1 August 9, 2010 07:27:21 AM

Yet another tiresome cliffhanger about as useful as the end of "Angel". I don't mind cliffhangers with a point, but was just a case of leading us on for four hours then going HA! FOOLED YOU!

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Robmac 1 August 9, 2010 08:27:13 AM

What a great episode. For any aspiring telly writers out there just take a look at this episode as Mark Gatiss wrote the hell out of it, a near hour and a half of dialogue, numerous plots all linking together, witty banter and a climax that was just fantastic.Fantastic stuff

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By bytat 1 August 9, 2010 09:22:01 AM

great show but I've got some gripes. why would anyone add new stuff to a painting when copying it?.. it's not as if the painter's standing on a field, repainting the motif with the new background.. big flaw if you ask me.. now it would be possible that Moriarty told the painter to do it but then Il'd like the story to adress that.. To have Sherlock Holmes oblivious about the solar system felt like utter nonsense.. a bit too much Sherlockee everyday details to be derived from that knowledge, don't you think?.. the tired act of having Moriarty to come back in the last scene was illogical and only served to create suspense at the cost of good story and believable characters.. ok, otherwise great tv.. probably the best brittish show around today.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By tinspider 1 August 9, 2010 09:27:01 AM

Brilliant, but I seem to be the only one who didn't like what they've done with the arch rival. For me the Louie Spence take on Moriarty doesn't work. I found him really irritating and slapable rather than intimidating and scary. Too OTT, just like the Master in nuWho.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By apeinflames 1 August 9, 2010 09:38:39 AM

Superb. Could there be a new Freeview Channel called BBC Moffat please? I had a great half a beat moment where I thought "Watson is here...Watson is Moriarty? This cannot be!" Cue my flashback to him shooting cabby in Study in Pink and leaving Sherlock prior to the exposion to support that assumption. Of course after that half second I thought "My Watson what a big coat you are wearing"...oh of course there's a bomb! Undecided on the Moriarty perfomance but to give it credit -it wasn't the Moriarty I expected so an innovative approach. There must be more episodes obviously. Perhaps the Hound of the Baskervilles? A Staffordshire Bull Terrier that glows in the dark is terrorising reality TV stars?

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Morph 1 August 9, 2010 09:51:19 AM

Brilliant, all of it. The fight with the golem in the observatory, the moment Sherlock's windows explode (that made me jump!), people strapped up with bombs reading messages, crazy irish Moriarty. Arrghh... that cliffhanger! Best telly ever.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By monkey_man 1 August 9, 2010 11:11:49 AM

@bytat It wasn't a copy of a painting, it was a 'lost masterpiece'; so it was a painting which had been referred to, but nobody had a hold of right now. When they recreated it, the forger knew the artists style inside out, which made it look authentic, but no-one knew exactly what the original painting looked like.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By llamafarmer 1 August 9, 2010 11:21:06 AM

bytat, The painting was a *lost* Vermeer. There was no original to copy.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Omniaural 1 August 9, 2010 11:43:37 AM

I like how they've consciously attempted to give you all the clues throughout the episode so that you can play detective too. It really gets you involved (I watch it with my family so we all had our different theories along the way) which makes it an excellent entertainment show, IMO. The partington plans was obviously part of the whole game too once they decided to keep that thread going. Also referring to Sherlock's lack of, what he thinks, irrelevant knowledge which once posted on the blog was exploited by Moriarty. I think the game was also a test of Holmes' humanity too. We saw a slight sign of inner turmoil after the flats blew up but he knew he could best serve the case by not dwelling on the lives that were lost. A great bit of character work there.

Good episode - Moriarty was weak though
Posted By moorish 1 August 9, 2010 11:54:22 AM

What was with all the campy, squeaky voice stuff??! Totally undercut any menace he might have had.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Shilling 1 August 9, 2010 01:24:13 PM

Pretty good, but Andrew Scott as Moriarty doesn't work for me. while I can't imagine anyone other than Cumberbatch playing Sherlock, Scott just seems interchangeable. They could switch to a different actor next series and it wouldn't bother me at all. He just lacks gravitas and doesn't seem capable of all the things Moriarty did from behind the scenes. I'm hoping the conspiracy theorists are right and this Moriarty is just a decoy.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By tinspider 1 August 9, 2010 03:32:16 PM

@moorish Nail. on. Head. - my thoughts exactly.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Dierk 1 August 9, 2010 06:13:31 PM

The cliffhanger end is a rather good adaptation of the original Reichenbach Falls stunt Doyle took - especially fitted to TV and the [faint] possibility the BBC hadn't already given a yellow-to-green light for a second set of 90-minute Sherlocks. Let's not forget that they wanted the extended running time after having seen the original 60-minute pilot [at least so the myth goes].

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By badfox 1 August 9, 2010 07:18:16 PM

Brilliant and can't wait for next year. But why is Declan Donelly Moriarty?

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By procrastinationathon 1 August 9, 2010 09:14:05 PM

i liked moriarty, even the squeekyness, here's my theory: he's putting it all on. he knows sherlocks work and methods, that he can work out a mans history from his speech, gait, clothing, etc. so what better thing to do than to just act as manic as possible? that way you can taunt your nemisis face to face, tell him your name and what you do, bit without him actually being able to know anything about you you'd rather not give away. ...well, it's an idea.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By gingerfreak 1 August 9, 2010 10:52:31 PM

Great stuff. I think Mark Gatiss' Dr. Who scripts have been poor, so I approached this with a little trepidation, but I needn't have worried. Excellent script, fantastic performances, and the direction was just brilliant. West's room looked like a painting, with the Dutch cues like the ceiling and the mirror.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Solus 1 August 10, 2010 05:39:01 AM

So fantastic everything was in that episode, the (over)actor playing Moriarty wasn't. Subtil villains are much better than cheesy maniac ones. But there's still hope: Moriarty could be a bad actor hired by the real Moriarty to fool Holmes. That would we really evil !

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By mokofil 1 August 10, 2010 02:55:04 PM

@procrastinationathon - exactly my thoughts. If Moriarty strolled in acting normally, then surely Holmes is going to divine his background? By acting manic, changing his gait, accent, mannerisms, tone of voice, etc - then it becomes more difficult to decide what is real and what is fake. He's still a mystery.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By DarrenCarnall 1 August 16, 2010 11:05:59 AM

Just utterly brilliant television. Moriarty was just *perfect!* - that conversation between him and Holmes was gripping. Brilliant intellectual flirting. Loved every second!

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By Headache2112 1 May 25, 2011 03:03:47 AM

Just watched "The Great Game" and I'm not certain why anyone thinks that this had a cliffhanger ending. It was a stalemate ending. There was nothing Holmes or Moriarty could do at that point other than to both back out. The Moriarty presented here was a bit of a nit, in my opinion. Watching those concluding moments, I didn't believe that we were seeing the real Moriarty. Then I figured it really was suppose to be him. Now, reading the comments of others, I'm siding with the hope that the real Moriarty sent this fool in to throw Holmes of the track. All three episodes were terrific. I look forward to the show's return.

Re: Sherlock: The Great Game review
Posted By devlar 1 August 3, 2011 03:58:13 AM

Fantastic television and the casting is nothing short of brilliant. Until Moriarty. I understand that they're gunning for a younger angle but it didn't work for me. The actor did fine, sure, but unlike the other reinterpretations this one rang a bit false. Moriarty was a match for Holmes intellectually but it was his extra years, his wisdom, that hinted at having an edge over the genius; this was how he became an honest threat. My hope? Borrow a page from Batman Begins and have a string of false Moriarities who confront Holmes until the TRUE villain is forced to reveal himself. And even then, was this the true Moriarity...
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Sherlock: The Great Game

Sherlock: The Great Game

Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement