Set in the aftermath of Braveheart, this bloody epic follows Robert the Bruce in his quest to rid Scotland of English rule. With William Wallace dead, dismembered, and his body nailed up across the land, most soldiers bend the knee to King Edward (Stephen Dillane). A tough but fair ruler who cares little for his impulsive, hedonistic son, Edward refuses to grant Scottish landowners back their estates, choosing instead to demean them.

Red leaves, pumpkin-flavored drinks and chilly weather are not the only things that mark the beginning of fall. This time of year can also be distinguished by the fresh new batch of TV pilots that make their premieres.

One of the most anticipated shows of this year is Fox’s “Gotham.”

Gotham is a Batman-less Batman show that follows the origin of Commissioner James “Jim” Gordon and other notable “Batman” comic book characters. The show serves as a prequel to the time when Gotham became a corrupt, crime-filled city.

Gotham begins with the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. Jim Gordon, the newest detective in the Gotham City Police Department, is paired with the experienced, irritable Harvey Bullock to investigate the gruesome homicide. Jim meets the young Bruce Wayne, who witnessed the horrific killing of both of his parents. Gordon makes a promise to Wayne that he will bring whoever committed this crime to justice. This budding friendship is part of the foundation that encourages Wayne to eventually become the Dark Knight.

The much-anticipated show premiered to the televisions of eight million people. Despite the hype, the show seemed to be a letdown to many loyal fans of the Batman series. The biggest problem with Gotham is its corny dialogue. This is mostly due to a poorly written script. Ben McKenzie (Gordon) and Donal Logue (Bullock) are both talented actors who have appeared in popular crime shows before, but their conversations are painfully cheesy at times. McKenzie has big shoes to fill portraying Jim Gordon. Oscar-nominated Gary Oldman famously portrayed this vulnerable cop in Christopher Nolan’s successful “Dark Knight” trilogy.

McKenzie shows potential as Gordon, but his character falls flat many times throughout the show. Trying to contrast Gordon’s optimism and naivety with the dark, sinful Gotham makes him sometimes come across as a dunce.

Another problem arises with the overwhelming number of villains that are introduced in the first episode. Instead of sprinkling these characters throughout the series, “Gotham” crams Catwoman, the Penguin, and the Riddler all into the pilot. Their introductions are rushed and anything but subtle. There is no mystery that these are the beginnings of the villains with lines like “You look like a penguin” and “If I want riddles I’ll read the funny pages.” These introductions are painfully obvious and are all crammed into one 45-minute episode.

It appears as though the focus of the show is to make money off of the brand name, rather than taking the time to develop a meaningful story. For “Gotham” to develop into a serious show, the writing definitely needs a serious makeover.

That's more like it.

After the clumsy fumbling of Episode 1 and the sloppy partial recovery of Episode 2 the third and final episode of this inconsistent and poorly executed third season ends with a bang; and episode that is as good as any that came before it and that even helps redeem its two forbears. It was riveting viewing from start to finish; one cleverly and sharply executed plot twist after another, some that changed the tone of the episode and some that changed the tone of the entire series.

It seems evident that the strength of the writing team lies in crafting episodes that are relatively straightforward. His Last Vow wasn't weighed down by explaining (or not) the cliffhanger that preceded it, nor did it experiment with a dual narrative in an effort to develop characters and lay breadcrumbs for the following episode while still trying to solve the crime of the week. This episode freshened things up by simply telling the story, and every twist, turn and character development was fuelled organically by where that story was going. No gimmicks were needed, because the cleverness of the tale and the brilliance of its characters didn't require that. 

In the villain, Magnusson, the team of Moffat, Thompson and Gatiss have created the most threatening and formidable foe Sherlock has ever encountered. His backstory and subtextual behaviours seemed to have been built from all the unspoken British (and particularly BBC) psychoses of the last half decade; the Newscorp scandal, the Saville revelations, the expenses and corruption scandals in Westminster and the Beeb, the 1% and the fear of rampant technological change (something that is subverted brilliantly towards the end when we finally see inside his vault). Lars Mikkelson portrays him masterfully, imbuing him with an air of cold, threatening superiority that dominates the screen. We agree with Holmes when he says that is the most dangerous man he and Watson have ever faced.

Sherlock's previous most threatening equal, Moriarty, represented pure anarchy - an uncontrollable tempest that was motivated by tearing down Baker Street's most famous detective and everything he believed in. He was a bull elephant in musth; uncontrollable, rampaging and unstoppable. Magnusson, by comparison, is the polar opposite; a black mamba, moving silently into whatever nook he pleases, calculating his chances and only striking when there was something to be gained. Upon striking, he consumes his prey with a cold dispassion until nothing remains, gone from the face of the earth. Whereas viewers enjoyed Moriarty's uncontrollable fury, the calmness of Magnusson, his domineering nature and his absolute superiority chills the skin. What I shall call the 'flicking scene' is a perfect example of this: a bully in his element, who cannot be stopped and who knows it. The 'flicking scene' is a perfect example of this, and is infuriating to watch, for we know that his victims are as powerless to stop him as we are.

As good as Mikkelson is though, it is Martin Freeman who turns in the best performance of the episode. John Watson is put through the wringer emotionally from start to finish, with few highs and plenty of lows. As our representative on screen, the one who cannot stop his attraction to the sociopathic genius that is Sherlock Holmes, he is as blown away by the revelations that whirl through the plot just as much as we are, as we both view so much of this series from the same point of view. The impenetrablity of Sherlock makes him impossible to relate to, whereas in Watson we see and feel so much of ourselves. Freeman exceeds himself in this episode, turning in his best performance of the entire series as Watson struggles to keep pace with the events that surround and threaten him.

Of course, that is not to say that a cast that has been so exemplary throughout the series does any worse than they have previously. Everyone remains on their A game and breathes the energy that the writing so desperately needs onto the screen. Cumberbatch is his usual brilliant self, driving Sherlock along, playing him at his calculating best. (It's just a shame for him that every great calculation he makes is met and often bested by Magnusson). Particular credit should go to Louise Brealey as Molly, who has been consistently brilliant and not used anywhere near as much as she should have been throughout the series. The few moments she is given in this episode she truly makes her own, especially when she finally gets to give Sherlock what's coming to him. 

The relationship with Mycroft and Sherlock is also played brilliantly, with much unveiled to us about the inner workings of the two sibling rivals, without ever gobbling up too much screen time, as they did in episode 1. The view we get into their world and their past is fascinating and puts much into context, and we truly get a sense of there being some deeper emotional connection between the two than we originally thought.

The success of the story can be attributed to two things - having the patience to let things unfold gradually, rather than succumbing to the expeditionary splurging of episodes 1 and 2. This goes a long way in creating the tension and drama this episode requires, meaning that the big revelations mean so much more when they hit (and do they ever). It also (and this is a lesson they should have taken in episode 1) pays off so many of things that had been set up in the two preceding episodes; little things we never noticed meant so much and were clearly hinting at something more, but - as is true of the brilliance of Sherlock - it is the things we see hiding in plain site that we fail most to see. While it doesn't atone for the inelegance in the telling of those standalone stories, it does lift the general view of the series as a whole, as it becomes clear that things were being moved carefully towards this point. One gets the sense that this was the story the writing team wanted to tell all along, but they had to deal with the filling episodes 1 and 2 with its own content in order to complete the setup.

The one disappointment I had is that the reputation Steven Moffat had as being incapable of being able to write a sympathetic female character, which was going so well throughout this series, was shattered here. Without giving too much away, once again so much of the humanity and relatability in some of the series most important women turned out to be a mere trick that worked on all of us. Curse those women and their duplicitous ways.

All in all though, this was as good an episode of Sherlock as there has ever been. Characters were varied and rich, the multi-layered nature of each one playing itself out brilliantly to create a tale that gave no no clue at where it was going to go. The revelations were explosive and change the dynamic of future series dramatically, and none of them felt cheap or gimmicky. This was the series at its finest, with writing that was sharp, punchy, clever and funny, a story that was simply inspired and a cast that was better than they've ever been.

And as for the ending... Spoilers below.

9.5/10

THE ENDING *SPOILERS*

They're going to have a tough time making Moriarty seem as threatening to Sherlock as Magnusson was, but twist of having him return from the dead can add some far deeper, more twisted layers to his character. In addition, the energy he brings to the series will be warmly received.

His resurrection opens up so many brilliant potential plots to move forward with that the nature of his character only strengthens from here out, almost exclusively at the man we thought had defeated him's expense. What if Moriarty faked his own death and set up the convoluted ending of series 2 (giving Sherlock some obvious ways out that he can then explain to us in series 4) in order to manipulate Sherlock into killing Magnusson for him? Mycroft said in episode 1 of season 3 that they knew Moriarty's network was still operational. Both men would naturally be a threat to the other, and maybe Moriarty was the more brilliant of the two. He only had to die to beat his rival. That means Sherlock was played, by a dead man, in order for Moriarty to be truly free of any recrimination. This idea (one of, I'm sure countless fan suggestions that will appear over the net year) could add a delightful new twist on how series 4 and its characters could progress.

Well, at least it was better than last week.

The second entry of Sherlock's third Season had a lot to recover from, as the first episode landed with such a self absorbed thud that it truly risked damaging the reputation of the series; characters were enthusiastically and extremely well played, though the endlessly self-referential, half baked plot and wonky pacing dragged things down to an unfortunate low. Whatever was going through the mind of the writing team of Moffat, Gatiss and Thompson when they sat down to pen this second episode will remain a mystery, but it is about as far away from the preceding episode in both plot, tone and style as it is possible to be. That's a good thing.

While by no means a home run, episode two bought the series' trademark warmth, sharp writing and candour back to the fore, alongside spending the a great deal of time delving into the psyche of Sherlock Holmes, allowing viewers to get under the skin of this enigmatic chameleon in a way that they have rarely - if ever - been allowed to before. Benedict Cumberbatch - as he consistently is in this role - was excellent in conveying every tiny nuance and shade of Sherlock's psychodrama, and one truly felt that they had a better understanding of the titular figure by the end of the episode than they had at the start. This is a very good thing, as Sherlock Holmes is usually little more than a vessel for clever dialogue and a writer's own skill; rarely is as much character development given to him as was in this episode.

The crime itself was masterfully constructed, hung - somewhat oddly - mainly in flashbacks around the setting of Sherlock's best man speech at John Watson's wedding. The scheme was indeed a true head scratcher, cleverly pulling together two different plots to construct a somewhat left field conclusion - albeit with an ingenious method of murder. Though it must be said, the plot itself and the criminal's motivation for it were quite undercooked, even though they could have been an interesting avenue to explore.

Unfortunately though, this was not a return to fine form of A Scandal In Belgravia or The Reichenbach Fall. The crux of the problems with the episode came in the way the two settings - the centralised, present day wedding and its multi-location and themed flashbacks - feeling far too disconnected from one another, and very unevenly paced. The writing that so often crackled with energy as Sherlock tenderly mauled his way through his best man's speech saw urgency rush from it as things transitioned to purportedly humorous sequences with drunk Sherlock or randy online cougars. While the scenes in flashback were pleasantly constructed enough, many of them fell flatter than they should have, and several felt very much like expositional setups hung around a funny gimmick, rather than the central motivators to the plot they should have been treated as.  

It feels like the writing team are unsure of where to go with Sherlock at this point in time. One feels like they aspire to more than just re-imaging  Sherlock Holmes stories for BBC One in 2014 (though if that's the case then they fail to see why the series caught traction in the first place). The success of BBC's Sherlock has been due to the clever cases being bought into the 21st century, framed by cleverly written, modern characters. The clever writing and the setting itself are not the primary reasons for its success.

Tonally, episodes one and two are worlds apart, much as season two and three seem to be, leading one to wonder if the writing team are unsure what to do with such a juggernaut on their hands. The lingering plot points and introduction of a shadowy new figure from episode one were completely ignored here, making one wonder where they are going with the series. There are clear aspirations toward something bigger, but one gets the feeling that no one is quite sure of what that is.

Still, it was a far better episode than the one that preceded it, and the change of scene to Watson's wedding, while not entirely successful (the post crime solving section was far too long and a bit too self indulgent), did offer up some great comedy, alongside moments that recaptured the glory of earlier days. There is hope for the series yet.

Oh, and in my review for episode one I said:

Less Mycroft in Seasons 1 and 2 meant better episodes, more Mycroft meant… this. Think about that before writing yourself a bigger part next time, Mr Gatiss.

There was far less Mycroft in this episode, and he was used sparingly and correctly. It's nice to see my instincts proven correct.

And it was all going so well...

The first two seasons of Sherlock were two of the best BBC dramas I had seen in a very long time. They were tightly written, funny, played off the strengths of the excellent Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch and bought the Arthur Conan Doyle classics into the modern age (albeit it in the  loveably naff way that the BBC approaches anything to do with 'technology' or 'modernity'). Season 2's A Scandal in Belgravia is one of my top 5 favourites TV episodes of all time.

So after the riveting climax of Season 2, a fantastically crafted episode that pushed everything we know about Sherlock Holmes right to the edge and then literally hurled it over the side to splat into the concrete below, we have an interminable two year wait for Season 3. And the result? Now you know what happens when writers masturbate while staring at their own reflection.

Constantly self referential about how brilliant they are, about how masterfully intricate Sherlock's escape from certain doom will  be, how loyal its fans are and basically what brilliant geniuses they are, the writing team of Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat and Stephen Thompson - though Gatiss gets main credit here - stood in front of the TV screen and pleasured themselves to their own work. Too many in-jokes, too many winks to the loyal viewers, too many pointless rabbit holes of fan service/fantasy/weirdness that went nowhere and just wasted time, the programme was frustratingly enamoured with itself. On top of this, the core motivator - a terrorist threat against London - that looks like it will take us through this series and has a lot of potential to be great, was pushed to the side so that we can bask in the glow of the genius of Mark Gatiss, Stephen Thompson and Steven Moffat.

But still, I liked it.

Cumberbatch as Sherlock is eminently watchable, as is Martin Freeman as Dr Watson, both of whom bring their absolute A game to the show, their passion clear as they gave everything they had to every scene (I won't go into spoilers but the reveal of Sherlock being alive and the scene in the abandoned tube at the climax were both absolutely brilliant). The supporting cast is, as always, fantastic, with particular attention being given the the much underdeveloped relationship between Sherlock and his brother Mycroft. These scenes crackle with energy and are some of the best written of the episode. (Though it should not be too much of a shock then, to know that Mycroft is played by Mark Gatiss himself, who has written himself the most meaty supporting character part of the episode. Less Mycroft in Seasons 1 and 2 meant better episodes, more Mycroft meant... this. Think about that before writing yourself a bigger part next time, Mr Gatiss).

Sterling performances aside (which are definitely the best thing about the programme - everyone is clearly focussed and having a ball at the same time), I'm also intrigued to see where the terror cell plot goes. While it was poorly treated and its setup thoroughly fumbled in this episode, the Moffat/Gatiss/Thompson writing group has produced gold amidst lead before, with dire The Hounds of Baskerville being wedged between two amazing episodes in Season 2, so I have hope. Treated intelligently, this terror cell has every opportunity to push Sherlock just as hard as Jim Moriarty did. Though hopefully without such expectation inducing stakes.

As it goes, this return episode of Sherlock was alright. It was all over the place in terms of focus and tone and it runs the risk of being a show too clearly in love with itself and its own wit. But it is saved by a cast of superb performers who clearly love the material, and as the opening chapter of a new series, the (Very thinly detailed) story has a great deal of potential. Lets just hope the writing team with so much goodwill so deservedly engendered to them develop and push it further, giving us the high stakes, plot driven drama that brings the brilliant wit of the show out of its characters so naturally, rather than bask in the glory of their own cleverness and success.

A cautious start.