When I saw the first few episodes of the initial series of "Sherlock", starring Benedict Cumberbatch, I was enthralled. He played a Sherlock who was consistently and honestly more over-the-top than Jeremy Brett's portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, but in a fun way that was almost believable. The shows made you want to believe, even though they were far-fetched. The use of computer technology seemed on the cutting edge, even if it wasn't or wasn't quite possible, and the relationships that evolved were interesting, intriguing, fun, and implausible but credible.
The plots were vaguely related to the plots of the originals by Conan Doyle, as implied by the titles. The acting was crisp, and the shows were massively more enjoyable than the movie(s) by Downey, Jr. We bought the blu-ray versions of both the first two series and were eagrely looking forward to Series 3.
What a disappointment. The acting is still crisp, but it is so over-the-top that it actually detracts from the plots, such as they are.
I don't blame the actors, though. I blame the writing and directing. The plots are thin, confused, and even less believable than those of the first two series. With Sherlock-3 we are now embroiled in stories that are more sci-fi fantasy than mysteries solvable by geniuses. And all the jumble of this-that-this-that blah blah blah that goes on seemingly every 5 minutes is, quite frankly, worse than annoying.
**** Spoiler Alert ****
How bad are the plots? As my younger son, Adam Smith Palmer, said about Episode 3-3, when Sherlock couldn't out-think the villain, he shot the person.
Well, isn't that a stunning triumph of wit, genius, and brilliance over brute force.