Okay, so now it's time for a more in-depth review of the second episode of Season two. And to celebrate this, I give the above picture of Sherlock, scrutinizing something. Yay for Benedict Cumberbatch hotness. :)
This retelling of Hound of the Baskervilles does not include a legend, or a supposedly cursed family. Instead, it is about Henry Knight (love that little inclusion, considering he was Sir Henry in the original,) a man who saw his father killed when he was just a boy. And who was the culprit? Supposedly, a gigantic hound. And it is when he says 'hound' that Sherlock becomes interested. Hound is not a word most people would use. Dog, mutt, something more generic, that's what they would use. But to say hound?
Sherlock and John talk to other people (including someone who causes Sherlock to lose 50 quid to John because of a pretend bet between them that Sherlock mentions,) and also get access, thanks to Sherlock pilfering a card of Mycroft's, to the Baskerville army base. They aren't able to ask/discover much before the security breach is detected by Mycroft. (Twenty three minutes is slow for Mycroft. Makes you wonder A - how often Sherlock has done this that he knows that, and B - how fast Mycroft has been in the past.)
Sherlock, John, and Henry wind up back on the moor where this gigantic hound is said to frequent. Though the audience never sees the hound, we hear the snarls and such, and we see Sherlock's reaction when he shines his flashlight where the hound is supposed to be.
I love how Sherlock doubts his senses and we can see how incredibly shaken he is, not only by what he cannot believe he saw, but when he apologizes to John, and tells him how he "doesn't have friends. [He's] just got one." I love the look on his face when John just says, "Right," and keeps walking away. Then, the Canon reference with Sherlock saying how John may not be the brightest person, but he's someone who encourages or inspires the brilliance of others.
Anyway, as I said, of the episodes I've seen thus far, this one felt the weakest to me. It was still brilliantly done, had Canonical references or tips of the hat, had terrific moments between Sherlock and John (especially the "I don't have friends," and the "No, it's NOT! It's NOT OKAY!" segments,) yet somehow, something was missing in this for me. Perhaps it's the fact that they aren't at Baker Street for most of this story. I know they can't be because it happens in a place far enough away from Baker Street that they can't easily go back and forth. Perhaps it's the fact that, to me, this one almost felt like it was outside of the rest of the episodes. The other four have had an underlying story arc/bigger picture kind of feel. This one felt outside the realm of all that. Like it was simply a stand alone episode and the only thing that ties it in with any of the others is the fact that Moriarty and Mycroft were briefly shown at the end.
I can't wait to see next week's episode, because I noticed something in this one that I think may be a clue for the conclusion of the third. I'm going to hold off on that, however, until I actually see next week's.
One thing I will say, though, is that people have speculated on John being under the influence of the same drug that was used in this episode when he saw Sherlock jump off the roof, and that that's how things were done. It does make sense to a degree. The drug was used on John either before, or just after Sherlock's phone call, and because John was afraid of what he would do, he saw what fear and worry had stimulated him to see.
However, while it makes a certain amount of sense in that context, the theory falls apart when one considers what happened in the Baskerville episode. The hallucinations people suffered because of the drug were never actually seen. The dog was never seen, except for at the end, when it was in fact a real dog, and the direction simply showed the real dog as Henry and Sherlock imagined it in their drugged minds.
In the next episode, we see Sherlock step off the roof and fall. In keeping with the continuity from the previous episode, if John was only afraid Sherlock would step off/jump/fall, we wouldn't have seen it. We would have seen him up on the roof, and then what appeared to be him lying on the ground below, with no intermediate scene.
However, I know this theory has been largely rejected anyway, because of the popular and, I feel, correct opinion that the show's director/producers would not pull the same trick twice.
Though I will say, if they did, it would certainly be something we'd never realize until Season 3 is out.
Just felt this pic matched the tone my last line leaves off on . . . :)