Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking

It seemed that prior to the Benedict Cumberbatch Sherlock franchise, The BBC tried its best at producing something different. The Hound of the Baskervilles several years earlier had been very good, this one seemed rather exciting. A really exciting premise, an original story, Rupert Everett, Michael Fassbender, Helen McCrory, and the return of the excellent Ian Hart as Watson.

I like everything, bar the story, it's pretty poor unfortunately, it's like they didn't have the best script, so opted for shocks and fairly graphic scenes, sadly it just doesn't work, which is a shame, because all the elements I mentioned earlier are so good, Rupert Evans is absolutely dazzling as Holmes, I loved him in the role, superior to Richard Roxburgh who'd previously played him, in almost every department. He's intelligent, harsh, calculating, and a little uneasy, talk about fitting the bill.

Such a shame the script, and poor ending let down what is a classy production, excellent music, gorgeous costumes, clearly money was spent on it, a shame it just doesn't quite work.

6/10 (Most of that is for the brilliance of Everett.)

The character of English writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is probably one of the most popular invented detective. He is very calm and has very cool attitude when he's trying to solve a murder. This movie will help you to like even more this brilliant detective. It's mostly because of the actor Rupert Everett who is very good in this roll. Also I have to say something about script. It's not the best that it can be, but it's good, because you cannot understand who is the murder till' the end. This movie takes place in London, where someone is killing young ladies from rich families. This case is been given to the best detective on the world,Sherlock Holmes. He has help from his friend Dr.Watson and from Watson's fiancée Mrs.Vandeleur. This movie is good because of the actors and script. Again I have to mention Rupert Everett who proved that he is very good actor. Also Ian Hart played well as Watson. Please look this movie with patience and watch a good performance from a fine actor.

Here's the problem. Holmes is one of our most important literary characters, possibly the most influential. He was the icon of the scientific mind, the rationalizer of human behavior.

The problem is that we have no good film versions of the man. His character depends on the nature of his mind. In the stories, we are Watson the observer and we see but do not perceive so discover the workings of this great mind by his watching (and later writing of what we read).

With movies, we all watch. We cannot see Holmes watching unless the nature of the character is altered. The Brett Holmes decided to show depth through tense miniexplosions and otherwise brooding.

I like this decision better. It has Holmes as an active mind, curious beyond all bounds. Impatient with his own mind which is already many times faster than anyone else's. This means the character has to be taken out of Victorian times and removed from the usual case that Holmes was confronted with. Often they involved rational logic to explain the inexplicable: either apparently psychic phenomenon or the inscrutable criminal mind, often genius.

What we have here is an impossibility of the old type: we discover well before the end who is the villain, yet it is impossible. And we have one of the necessary disguises. But the mechanics of the thing is all different. The criminal is one familiar to modern serial killer movies. We understand him (unrealistic or not) and so does the good doctor's fiancé.

In this case, it is Watson that provides the successful sleuthing at the end while Holmes remains stymied. The drugs are played up too. It is a bit shocking to one who looks for the books in the movies.

But it has the right feel to it. What we want is a brilliant obsessive, someone with deep focus and tremendous reasoning power. But not a superman. Not someone with parlor tricks. We have that here, plus the feel of a man who can barely tolerate women.

I wish Rupert were more gaunt and less rugged looking. He seems too strong. The power of the man should be in his intensity, the impression that he sees through you, not his beef.

I'll recommend this even though the production values and story aren't very good. But the character engineering is. And it has an appealing imperiled girl.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Rupert Everett's replacement of Richard Roxburgh for a second post-Jeremy Brett installment of big budget Holmes adaptation is quite a wise one, adding as it does a touch of youthful energy to the detective's armoury. Indeed, the whole film runs at a cracking pace, dropping clues like confetti. But what really makes this adaptation shine is a growing sense of purpose in terms of atmosphere. Arthur Conan Doyle's creation is plunged further into its roots as a purveyor of the grotesque and shocking. Corpses, evil smiles (and that's just Ian Hart's Watson!), drug use, great music score, and plenty of dense smog enhance the proceedings further than the decent acting or script. Well worth a look on a dark night...

I'll admit it. I'm a big Holmes fan. I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could really write. However, this cute little TV movie leaves something to be desired... although I'm not sure what. (Yes, I do type like this after watching old movies. No, I don't like it, either.) Jeremy Brett - the other Holmes I've seen - was creepy at first, but he sort of grew on you until you no longer thought of him as an actor, but as Holmes himself. Everett... just... no. I don't find eyelashes very professional-looking.

I'm fairly sure that this was written from scratch - basically, that Sir Doyle didn't write it. This explains a few parts that are a bit ... well, dubious. Also, the perpetrators?! I know, there are lots of other outrageous solutions in the Holmes series, but still, it seems like a silly way to solve a mystery. "Hey, let's write a Sherlock Holmes with SOCKS and have TWI-" oops, nearly gave it away. Moving on...

One thing to note is that I liked this Watson more than other one. He seems a bit more alive then Hardwicke. That's always good.

6/10 - Worth a watch, if you like Sherlock Holmes. Otherwise, you may want to rent a nice Harry Potter.