STREAM ANYTIME with Prime Video from $14.97

$23.35

Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime FREE Returns

FREE delivery Wednesday, January 4 if you spend $25 on items shipped by Amazon

Arrives after Christmas. Need a gift sooner? Send an Amazon Gift Card instantly by email or SMS.

In Stock.

[{"displayPrice":"$23.35","priceAmount":23.35,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"23","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"35","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"LxzAScHsZaBoZeLcdMKq7bb%2FsuTjjMmNjGYuJEuwiW3A4smdTzgjBFUQPZaxRTFrj%2Bfquy2I4ENFiQ4%2BI8R30K9Ug3LxdZ9nrhsm1jjesgxH5D9WYYpv57TSxwO8i32h0fLoqjMYbeFDi5X%2F%2Fz0CUg%3D%3D","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW"}]

$$23.35 () Includes selected options. Includes initial monthly payment and selected options. Details

Enhancements you chose aren't available for this seller. Details

${cardName} not available for the seller you chose

${cardName} unavailable for quantities greater than ${maxQuantity}.

Secure transaction

Ships from

Amazon.com

Sold by

Amazon.com

Details

Ships from

Amazon.com

Sold by

Amazon.com

Return policy: Returnable until Jan 31, 2023

Add a gift receipt for easy returns

Other Sellers on Amazon

Added

Not added

$17.59
+ $4.32 shipping

Sold by: Larry's Library and Emporium

Added

Not added

$17.95
+ $3.99 shipping

Sold by: HSDBooks

Added

Not added

$18.19
+ $4.41 shipping

Sold by: holiday688books

Have one to sell?

Sell on Amazon

Image Unavailable

Image not available for
Color:

Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available
To view this video download Flash Player

Sherlock: Season 1 [Blu-ray]

Benedict Cumberbatch (Actor), Martin Freeman (Actor) Rated:

Format: Blu-ray

9,385 ratings

IMDb7.9/10.0

Amazon's Choice for "sherlock blu ray season 1-4"

-42% $23.35

List Price: $39.98

Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime

FREE Returns

Additional Blu-ray options

Edition

Discs

Price

New from

Used from

Blu-ray
November 9, 2010

"Please retry"

Standard Edition

$23.35

$14.69

$2.92

Blu-ray

"Please retry"

—

$17.29

—

Blu-ray

"Please retry"

—

$17.81

—

Watch Instantly with

Per Episode

Buy Season

Sherlock Season 1 — $14.97

Enhance your purchase

Genre	Drama
Format	Blu-ray, Color, Subtitled, Widescreen
Contributor	Rupert Graves, Vinette Robinson, Mark Gatiss, Louise Brealey, Martin Freeman, Una Stubbs, David Nellist, Benedict Cumberbatch, Andrew Scott, Tanya Moodie, Jonathan Aris, Zoe Telford See more
Language	English
Number Of Discs	2

Available at a lower price from other sellers that may not offer free Prime shipping.

Frequently bought together

Total price:

To see our price, add these items to your cart.

Choose items to buy together.

by Benedict Cumberbatch Blu-ray
$23.35
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Get it as soon as Tuesday, Jan 3
by Benedict Cumberbatch Blu-ray
$23.99
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Get it as soon as Thursday, Jan 5

Various
2,481
Blu-ray
20 offers from $59.93
Benedict Cumberbatch
7,731
Blu-ray
23 offers from $3.99
Various
6,051
Blu-ray
28 offers from $6.99
Benedict Cumberbatch
6,642
Blu-ray
23 offers from $6.48
101
DVD
7 offers from $22.59
Various
3,198
Blu-ray
29 offers from $2.92

Product Description

A contemporary take on the classic Arthur Conan Doyle stories, Sherlock is a thrilling, funny, fast-paced adventure series set in present-day London. Co-created by Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Coupling) and Mark Gatiss, Sherlock stars BAFTA-nominee Benedict Cumberbatch (Hawking, Amazing Grace) as the new Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman (The Office, Love Actually), as his loyal friend, Doctor John Watson. Rupert Graves plays Inspector Lestrade. The iconic details from Conan Doyle's original books remain--they live at the same address, have the same names and, somewhere out there, Moriarty is waiting for them. And so across three thrilling, scary, action-packed and highly modern-day adventures, Sherlock and John navigate a maze of cryptic clues and lethal killers to get at the truth.

Product details

Aspect Ratio ‏ : ‎ 1.78:1
Is Discontinued By Manufacturer ‏ : ‎ No
MPAA rating ‏ : ‎ NR (Not Rated)
Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 0.5 x 5.3 x 6.7 inches; 2.4 Ounces
Item model number ‏ : ‎ 15426017
Media Format ‏ : ‎ Blu-ray, Color, Subtitled, Widescreen
Run time ‏ : ‎ 7 hours and 41 minutes
Release date ‏ : ‎ November 9, 2010
Actors ‏ : ‎ Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Una Stubbs, Rupert Graves, Louise Brealey
Subtitles: ‏ : ‎ English
Language ‏ : ‎ English (Dolby Digital 5.1)
Studio ‏ : ‎ BBC Home Entertainment
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B004132I20
Country of Origin ‏ : ‎ USA
Number of discs ‏ : ‎ 2

Best Sellers Rank: #31,013 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
- #2,537 in Drama Blu-ray Discs

Customer Reviews:
9,385 ratings

Customer reviews

5 star		91%
4 star		5%
3 star		2%
2 star 0% (0%)		0%
1 star		1%

How customer reviews and ratings work

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

D. G. Florida

Seasons 1 & 2 - Fantastic. Season 3 mediocre, Season 4 junk.

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 25, 2022

Verified Purchase

Season 1 and 2 are fantastic, its Sherlock Holmes in the modern world. Season 3 takes a step down, there is a lot of "character development". Some is good and in keeping with Holmes, a lot is the writers taking "creative license". A lot of whining and whimpering from Watson and Sherlock. Season 4 simply sucks. I wouldn't even put it under the Sherlock Holmes label, particularly "The Final Problem".

If I had to score them, Season 1 is 100, season 2 is 100, season 3 is 70, season 4 is 30. Don't bother with season 4.

And the Sherlock reviews show the problem with Amazon reviews - all 4 seasons have 9/10 on Amazon. But everywhere else, reviews basically follow my review, with season 4 being terrible.

Helpful

Holmes Fan

Negative stars for this vile filth

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on December 30, 2017

Verified Purchase

At the time of this writing, late December 2017, there are renewed threats that the terrible “Sherlock” television show might be revived. I’m begging that this vile piece of filth – which never should have existed in the first place – not be given yet more time to damage the true Sherlock Holmes! This show is an abomination from first to last, making people think that Sherlock Holmes was a murderous creepy sociopath, Watson had a psychosomatic wound (with all the A to A-0.1 range that Martin Freeman’s little sputtering double-take Jim/Hobbit skill can generate), that Mary is a ninja and Mrs. Hudson is the widow of a drug dealer and Irene Adler is a dominatrix, and that Mycroft and Moriarty were . . . whatever that was that those terrible terrible actors, Mark Gatiss and Andrew Scott tried to portray.

When I first heard about a new Sherlock Holmes television show several years ago, to be produced by BBC Wales, I was thrilled. I’ve been an avid reader and collector of literally thousands of stories about the original true Holmes since I was a boy in the 1970’s. (I’ve even written some Holmes stories and novels, and edited a lot of other Holmes anthologies.) Soon, in spite of my initial enthusiasm, I was disappointed to see that this new show was going to be set in modern times. This has been done before in several films, so it was not a new or original idea – do these clowns have any original ideas? Additionally, there have been shows such as “House” that lift many Sherlockian aspects, giving us even more versions of a modern Holmes. The thing these modern versions have in common is that they are not actually about Sherlock Holmes, a character born in the 1850’s, and working as a consulting detective in the Victorian and Edwardian ages. These modern takes are instead about a character that has the same name, a few personality quirks, and little else.

Of course, when I first saw “Sherlock” I was mightily disappointed. Still, I’m just one voice, and it went on to be wildly popular, with many people arguing that it didn’t matter if it was set in the correct era, as long as the characters had the correct names. I have to disagree with that. As I’ve explained before elsewhere: Imagine a new movie re-make featuring a character named Luke Skywalker, who lives in a dusty desert Old West town and meets a crazy old prospector/ex-soldier named Ben Kenobi. They find out about a girl that needs to be rescued, and they hire a roguish wagon driver, Hans, and his big hairy unintelligible tobacco-chewing side-kick (named “Chew ‘Bac’er”) to take them somewhere. Then, there is some big-shot with a pun-like name similar to Darth Vader who has a Death Train – kind of like the one in the “Lone Ranger” movie – and so on. The character names are the same or very similar, and there are all sorts of winks and nods to the original fans, showing that the creators are very familiar with the original material – as the Bard said, “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose” – but if it’s not actually set in the “stars”, then it isn’t “Star Wars” anymore.

As the show “Sherlock” progressed, many people who had initially enjoyed it came to dislike it, as it wandered farther and farther from Sherlock Holmes, becoming a shrine to how clever Gatiss and Moffat think they are. As things stand following their desecration, Holmes is a drug addict murderer and Mary Watson is a global assassin. How does that fit at all with the true Canon?

When it was first teased that there was going to be a stand-alone episode of the show, in what came to be “The Abominable Bride”, setting Holmes and Watson back in the correct Victorian era, I was cautiously optimistic. Gatiss and Moffat stated in interviews that they had the chance to film Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Holmes and Watson the way they were supposed to be, “back to basics.” Photos were released throughout the process showing the actors in period costume and on appropriate sets. Over and over, it was indicated that this was going to be a unique episode, wherein Holmes and Watson would be in the correct time period, with no explanation whatsoever. It would be completely separate from the modern-day version, which had concluded Season 3 by sending “Sherlock”, that modern-day alternate universe simulacrum of the true Holmes, into exile following his cold-blooded murder of a rich criminal.

On the night of the premiere, January 1st, 2016, the episode ran in England five hours before appearing in the U.S. Before the 9pm showing here in the U.S., I had four emails from friends warning me, including one that indicated there were some “modern” aspects. However, we settled in to watch. The first hour was okay. It was exceptionally well filmed, I didn’t mind some of the snappy in-joke dialogue, and I didn’t object to the film techniques of reenacting the crimes as seen from the sitting room, or having Holmes grab the floating newspaper articles in his mind. I thought that was the “modern” part that I had been told/warned about.

And then, at around the one hour mark, that exceptionally terrible actor – and I can’t overstate that fact enough, he’s simply awful – Andrew Scott, shows up as a Moriarty hallucination. The room starts to shake and rock, and suddenly we’re back on the airplane in modern times, where Season 3 left off. My blood pressure spiked in anger so much that my head hurt, and – to paraphrase a character in “A Study in Scarlet” – “I believe I would have had a fit of some sort if the blood had not gushed from my nose and relieved me.” Actually, I didn’t have a nose bleed, but I probably needed to.

For it turned out that Gatiss and Moffat had – no surprise here – proven to be liars.

The next half hour devolved into a mess in which Holmes was drug-hallucinating the whole 1890’s segment in order to figure out how Moriarty in the present had supposedly survived. It then went through a whole round-about of dreams within dreams – a concept blatantly stolen from “Inception” – and alternate realities wherein the modern version might be a story told by the 1890’s Holmes or the 1890’s version might be a drug hallucination from the present – a concept blatantly stolen from a “Deep Space 9” episode, and probably a number of other things blatantly stolen that I don’t even recognize.

In the end, I wasn’t surprised, as Gatiss and Moffat just can’t help themselves. I don’t watch “Doctor Who”, but I can only imagine the pain felt by some of those true fans as these people ruin their character too. I do know that when Gatiss adapted the Poirot episode “The Big Four”, he stated that the novel that it was based on was “an almost unadaptable mess.” He certainly unadapted it, all right. In fact, he ruined it. There were parts of it that should NOT have been changed or eliminated, but of course he did. There’s a reason certain books and characters are beloved across generations, and it constantly amazes me that script writers like Gatiss think that they can do better than the original authors when messing up original material that has millions of loyal followers for a reason.

“The Abominable Bride” can only be rewatched if one only views the 1890’s segments that relate to the Ricoletti investigation – most of the first hour, and a very few pieces from the last half-hour – ignoring the modern dreck tacked on to it. I’ve had to do this kind of thing before. For instance, I’ve re-read several times the first two chapters of “The Last Sherlock Holmes Story” by Michael Dibdin, but I go no further, as the rest of the book is a spurious addition that only damages Holmes. The same is true for “Sherlock” – To paraphrase Doyle: It takes people’s minds from better things.

No one needs to see Mr. Cumberbatch say something snarky or cute while wearing a cool coat. I could not care less specifically about Benedict Cumberbatch, et al. I’ve never in my life watched a film or TV show just because it had a certain actor in it. I watch for characters. It doesn’t matter to me if Indiana Jones is played by Harrison Ford or Sean Patrick Flanery or River Phoenix, as long as they get the character of Indiana Jones right. Cumberbatch’s Holmes was almost right for 2/3’s of “The Abominable Bride”, as close as some other actors have come, and the whole thing could have been really great – the first time that Cumberbatch had actually played the true Holmes on screen – but then they went off in the weeds. And then they went off a cliff. And the episodes that followed simply became too loathsome for even many crazed fans. This sickening show should die.

Gatiss and Moffat claim to respect The Canon, and that there would be no modern adaptations, as they wanted to direct people back to the originals. But they had no problems putting out their terrible versions as comics, and also defiling the original stories by putting out versions with Cumberbatch and Bilbo Baggins on the cover. Hypocrites to the end.

Tell Gatiss and Moffat I said so. Tell them I hate their stinking show and what they’re trying to do to the True Sherlock Holmes. Tell them to go try to ruin something else instead.

15 people found this helpful

Helpful

H. Bala

"Possible suicides, four of them? There's no point sitting at home when there's finally something fun going on!"

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 25, 2010

Verified Purchase

- Sherlock Holmes: "Shut up."
- Inspector Lestrade: "I didn't say anything."
- Sherlock Holmes: "You were thinking. It's annoying."

A proud man is ex-Army doctor, John H. Watson. But he is neither so proud nor his finances so sound that he'd turn his nose up at the chance to share rent on a flat, even if the flat mate should be that most peculiar and aggravating person, Mr. Sherlock Holmes. John Watson is immediately struck with the eccentricity of Holmes, and with his brilliance. And lest those Holmesian afficianados throw a fit, we first meet the Great Detective harshly applying a riding crop to a corpse in an effort to discover lividity, so at least we're reassured that certain things remain the same. Holmes still conducts his nasty experiments. Lean and saturnine, he is still very much the detached thinking machine, still the cold fish, except that, striding thru modern-age London as he does, some people assume he's a bit of a switch hitter.

Somewhere, Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are nudging each other in the ribs. After all, they did this first. In these contemporary times, Sherlock Holmes wages war on ennui, rages against boredom. He fills a role as Scotland Yard's unofficial consulting detective, a necessary tool in crime solving, even if the constabulary consider him a freakish prat. Some have wondered how Holmes would fare in the 21st Century, and the answer is: quite comfortably, thanks ever so. Holmes always was a scientific man, and very practical. Practicality dictates that Holmes would make use of today's technology, and we see him here applying the Internet and his cellie and GPS trackers and so forth. He runs his own website: The Science of Deduction. It doesn't get as many hits as John Watson's blog which is where one can read up on Sherlock Holmes' cases. To quote Holmes: "I'd be lost without my blogger." Heh.

SHERLOCK Season One compiles the three 90-minute made-for-television movies that aired on BBC One in 2010. Steven Moffat, who now runs DOCTOR WHO, is one of the masterminds behind this new series and his name is enough endorsement for me. This is a very cool re-imagining of the classic detecting icon. Some of the mythos have been stripped away. Steal away from the gaslit Victorian age. Discard the Inverness cloak, do away with the deerstalker cap, and also the notion that Dr. Watson is an utter baffled-head. What's left is the core of the detective and his fast friendship with the good doctor. Plonked in this contemporary era, Sherlock Holmes still runs circles around everyone. Only, as a nod to the sign of the times, the master sleuth has traded his pipe for heaps of nicotine patches. 221B Baker Street survives. But now it's perched atop Speedy's Sandwich Bar & Cafe.

The show works because of the casting choices. Benedict Cumberbatch makes a right proper Sherlock Holmes, even if his name sounds like J.K. Rowling made it up; Cumberbatch exudes idiosyncracy and that certain imperious air that makes you just want to kick him around the room a little. It's spot on. Martin Freeman has the less showy role, but probably the more challenging role. It's easy to do flash. Harder to play everyman and to still stand out. Freeman's Watson is not at all dull-witted, is most capable as a man of action. He's just not as good at sudoku as his flat mate. These two actors generate instant chemistry. They are compelling together.

The cases confound. The series comes rife with new material and a dark mood but with unexpected humor. There are nods to A.C. Doyle's classic mysteries. "A Study In Pink" pits Holmes against a clever serial killer who talks his victims into killing themselves, and if you haven't caught on to the word play in the episode title, this one is loosely adapted from "A Study In Scarlet." "The Blind Banker" has Holmes doing a favor for an old school chum and investigating a break-in and a rash of graffiti. His sniffing around leads him to a locked room murder mystery and a circus. This case takes a wee bit from "The Adventure of the Dancing Men" (the graffiti as cypher sub-plot). Finally, in "The Great Game," the world's sole consulting detective plays a deadly cat-and-mouse game with a mad bomber who leaves deadlines and clues via his victims. This, even as Mycroft presses him to recover missing top secret government papers. This is very loosely based on "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans" and just a whiff, just a whiff of "The Five Orange Pips." Throughout, there's emphasis on showcasing Holmes' dazzling deductive process.

Somewhere in all this, we meet Sherlock's brother Mycroft who, as he says, "occupies a minor position in the British government" (but we know better). And in the shadows - pulling strings and simply being a sodding evil sod - sits the criminal genius Moriarty who, next to boredom (and, possibly, trivia about the solar system), serves as archnemesis to Sherlock Holmes. In "The Great Game" Moriarty and Holmes finally have a proper chat. The chat ends inconclusively. Still, who needs gaslit lamps and horse-drawn cabbies, eh?

The 2-disc DVD set comes with the following bonus material: 2 audio commentaries: one for "A Study In Pink" by the show's producers/writers (Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss and Sue Vertue), another for "The Great Game" from Mark Gatiss & actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman; the unaired hour-long pilot "A Study In Pink" (later expanded and reworked into the 90-minute version that did air); and "Unlocking Sherlock" - the roughly 33-minute-long "Making Of" featurette with, among other things, cast & crew interviews, their thoughts on relocating Sherlock Holmes to present-day London, and comparison shots between the pilot and the movie.

111 people found this helpful

Helpful

Top reviews from other countries

Mr. D. L. Rees

GENIUSES AT WORK

Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on December 27, 2010

Verified Purchase

A triumphant updating, Holmes and Watson now very much part of the twenty first century - Holmes with his laptop and texts, Watson with his blogs. Inventive, witty and wonderful viewing.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are superb in the central roles, Mark Gatiss excellent as brother Mycroft, Rupert Graves a fine Lestrade - he no fool but realizing when help is needed. Full marks to viewers who spot Moriarty when he first appears - another brilliant portrayal, he and Holmes chillingly opposite sides of the same coin.

Gripping adventures (full attention is needed!), great atmosphere. Lots of laughs too. ("Three pipe problems" now involve nicotine patches. "Freak's here!" Lestrade's officer calls out when Holmes arrives at the crime scene. Watson is repeatedly having to correct those who assume he and Holmes are an item.)

3 90 minute episodes, the third with a commentary by Gatiss, Cumberbatch and Freeman (interesting anecdotes). Bonuses include a "behind the scenes" feature and a never before seen hour long pilot. (It fascinates to note how this evolved into the episode eventually shown.)

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, Holmes addicts both, have here created a masterpiece - no mean achievement in itself but quite staggering when one remembers Moffat is now also masterminding "Doctor Who".

Awesome.

4 people found this helpful

Mrs Pisaroni

NICE MODERN TAKE

Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on December 2, 2010

Verified Purchase

I didn't watch this first time around,I confess to being a little snobby about an updating of the Holmes story. I am now watching the re-runs on BBC3 and was genuinely surprised and pleased to be really entertained by this clever adaptation. To me Basil Rathbone is Sherlock Holmes, I absolutely HATE the over the top maniacal performances of Jeremy Brett, but Benedict Cumberbatch was very good as the detective.
The texting, E'mailing and blogging were good ideas and I felt that the spirit of the originals remained. Critical reviewers on these pages have cited 'over-production' whatever that means, and sloppy dialogue. Sadly they have also been critical of the many people who have written favourable reviews, and somewhat arrogantly have suggested that the current TV viewer,and by implication the positive reviewers,are incapable of appreciating good drama or being critical of what they, the critics, see as poor drama.
Personally I found the series well acted and well written and worthy of the praise it has received. To compare it unfavourably to 'Monk' and 'House' as one reviewer has done is pretty incomprehensible as is the rather boring old chestnut that we cannot make drama of as high quality as American TV. Give me British TV every time, and, more of 'Sherlock' please. This Holmes afficionado for one would be pleased to see another series.

9 people found this helpful

Kindle Customer

Sherlock BBC Series

Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on January 23, 2013

Verified Purchase

If any of you are trying to decide whether to buy the Guy Richie Sherlock Holmes films or the BBC versions I would urge you to choose the BBC adaptations. This is because they are more original and are set in modern times. The characerisation of Sherlock and Watson is brilliant - both because of the script and excellent acting. It is extremely funny watching Holmes and Watson in their living arrangements because they are so funny and this gets better with each series. I love the guy who plays Moriarty because he depicts him as a bit geeky with strange, cheesy tastes (For example in one of the episodes Moriarty's phone goes off and his ring tone is 'Staying Alive'. The first series sets the scene for the unfolding of sinister events later on .Although I don't want to spoil it for viewers who may not have seen it, the bbc series plays with the suggestion that was put forward in literary criticism that Sherlock, (the fictional character) is not all he appears to be. Considering the viewer has warmed to Sherlock, it's great in creating uncertainty over how reliable 'evidence' put forward is and creates a great feel of suspense. The BBC series is by far the best adaptation of the books I have come across so far.

J Z A

A modern Sherlock without loosing anything?

Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on August 1, 2011

Verified Purchase

I am a big fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories and have enjoyed most of the TV and film adaptations as well as the books, but I was a little concerned about how it was going to look and feel with the contemporary element. I have to say it worked very well.
The wit and humour was well drawn and the characterisation was note perfect. Holmes is at heart a dysfunctional and unlikeable individual; a one trick pony who lacks the concept of social behaviour except as a factor in others to be taken into account when analysing them, and so the temptation to make him "nice" must be fought. Watson was given more of a back story than is usual which was important as it neatly explained their cohabitation, etc. A well balanced unbalanced pair.
The use of technology was well developed, as was all the background interest, Mrs Hudson, the "street urchins", etc. My only slight criticism was the villain himself, Moriarty was a little to psychotic for me. I see him as the balancing cold intelligence abstractly evil as Holmes is abstractly good and I say abstractly because they both make their own rules up and don't value the opinion of others at all.
But overall a 5 star must see DVD. I am looking forward to Series II

One person found this helpful

Ronald Crump

I was wrong to doubt such a brilliant show

Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 21, 2011

Verified Purchase

Being a bit of a Sherlock Holmes purist, I must admit that I didn't really enjoy this when it was originally aired on TV. I'd come to it with blinkers on, and never really gave it a chance (switching off in disgust at the point where Holmes declared that it was a `three patch problem')!

However, having just recently obtained a copy of the first series I have just watched the whole of the first episode (A study in Pink) and can't believe how much I enjoyed it! Not only is it funny and gripping, but also very cleverly thought out in the way that certain aspects of the original novel have been brought to life with a modern twist. The casting of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman is perfect too - I just feel ashamed that it's taken me so long to appreciate it, but as they say better late than never!

For anyone else who loves the original Holmes, I say give it a chance - it's still not everyone's cup of tea I'm sure, but if you open your mind, you might, just like me, be pleasantly surprised.

4 people found this helpful

See all reviews

Other Sellers on Amazon

Image Unavailable

Sherlock: Season 1 [Blu-ray]

Enhance your purchase

Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Product Description

Product details

Videos for this product

Sherlock trailer Video

Videos for this product

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes

Customer reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Top reviews from other countries