IMDb user comments for
Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004) (TV)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

47 comments in total

---

21 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
The chilling Mr Holmes, 4 January 2005
Author: Englishman from London, England

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...

---

36 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
Double jeopardy - certainly not Holmes, and not very good, 12 January 2005
Author: Steve Gough from Burmingem, England

Apart from the names Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, there's really nothing to connect this original BBC TV movie to the original Conan Doyle stories. It's a return to the old wartime Basil Rathbone films, set in the wrong period, packed with anachronistic detail, and which fails to pay even lip service to Holmes's famous method. It's a poorly written modern police drama right down to the obligatory, clunking serial killer plot. It's just dressed in period costume. Even the plot twist about the killer's identity comes in Edwardian dress, as it could only ever possibly fresh and original in disguise pretending to be a story written a hundred years ago.

The story constantly forces modern elements incongruously into Holmes's necessarily, fundamentally low tech world. The story is set some time after the Victorian era of the classic Holmes stories, apparently to justify the use of telephones and modern police techniques like fingerprinting. Watson is about to marry an American psychiatrist, which opens the door to the modern serial killer psychodrama whose emphasis is on woolly sexual motivation and grotesque patterns of behaviour, worlds away from the traditional Holmes story where logic and deduction solve single victim locked room murders. The oddly un-Edwardian London police set up an incongruous, modern incident room to collate the information about their spiralling body count. In one scene Holmes spins around this room staring helplessly at photographs and maps, unable to connect fact and incident, which reduces the finest logical detective mind in the world to the level of "Inspector X" in any paint-by-numbers police series. Eventually Inpector Lestrade himself time-travels to the 1970s to give a suspect an Sweeney-style kicking to make him talk.

Rupert Everett as Holmes drifts through the first half of the story like someone on a mixture of recreational drugs, which is clearly the writer's deliberate intention. Trying to exploit the radical elements in Holmes's character the story inflates his drug use out of proportion. Conan Doyle saddled his creation with a habit of injecting cocaine, but there is never any suggestion that Holmes had a narcotic monkey on his back. He claims his 7 per cent solution stimulates his mind in times of boredom, a world away from the use of soporifics to deaden his brain.

Ironically it seems that in order to make these seasonal specials featuring Holmes himself the BBC abandoned its own excellent Holmes homage, the quite superb Murder Rooms, which succeeded in every respect that this film fails, injecting modern style and sensibilities while still honouring the source material. They were faithful in period detail and in many respects to the type of detective story which suits the Holmes character, and where they took a post-modern approach were able to underscore rather than undermine the quality of the original. It begs the question, as they clearly have access to writers with the talent to produce this kind of work, why didn't they use them here? Even more ironically, in the UK while this film was one of the main planks of the BBC's Christmas 2004 season evening schedule, the BBC have also been showing daytime repeats of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes. The strength of this performance, and the faithfulness to the original material, casts the poor work here into sharp relief.

---

10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Not too accurate, but not too bad either, 25 October 2005

Author: Emberweave from Chicago, IL, USA

I agree with others about elements of this story which seem anachronistic to Sherlock Holmes. The fingerprinting was definitely jarring. What makes Holmes so brilliant is that he was able to find criminals without the help of any technology. My only other real problem with this story was the incredibly terrible make-up job done on Holmes for his disguise! That was the only moment that was laughable and took me out of the story. Please! Who wouldn't know there was something weird about that face? Jeremy Brett had much more convincing disguises in the 1980s. Speaking of Jeremy Brett, he was so brilliant that it is difficult to see any other actor in the role of Holmes. However, Ruper Everett does a great job of creating his own kind of Holmes. He gives off a much younger energy (which also made the much later time frame seem odd), but definitely captures the aloofness & arrogance of Holmes. He was a pleasure to watch. Ian Hart was a hoot as Watson. The two actors play very well off each other and there were some quite funny scenes. The story wasn't bad. It didn't give anything away too soon like a lot of mysteries have been doing lately. The atmosphere was spooky and there was a tension throughout the story that kept your attention. This production was not particularly accurate with regards to the Holmes stories, but it was an enjoyable program and is worth watching.

PS- I was very sad to read in another review that the BBC won't be doing any more Murder Rooms. Now THOSE are some great stories!

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
On Everett as Holmes, 4 November 2005

Author: beng-15 (beng@ci.aspen.co.us) from Woody Creek, Colo.

As a big Sherlock Holmes fan, I was looking forward to "Silk Stocking," but was very disappointed with Rupert Everett's performance. He gave the distinct impression of being bored all the way through. Also, I was surprised by the scene of him shooting up during the case. My understanding of the "real" Holmes is that he was bored in between cases, and that's when he enjoyed his 7% solution. When in the midst of a case, he was excited and engaged and focused -- none of which Everett showed in his performance. My favorite Holmes remains Jeremy Brett, who showed actual modulation in Holmes' personality (irritation and boredom before the case presented itself; excitement, sometimes to a bizarre extent, during a case; rapture at listening to a classical concert etc.) rather than the sleepy, Johnny-one-note performance of Everett. Four snores.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
A Good Holmes, A Mediocre Story, 24 October 2005

Author: SonOfMoog

Stage, screen, and television adaptations or features using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters turn on one simple, inescapable point: do we believe the actor as Holmes? If the answer is yes, then a bad story is still pretty good. If the answer is no, then whatever other attractions the story holds are worthless.

The answer here is clearly yes: Rupert Everett is very good as Sherlock Holmes. The transfer from print to screen is almost flawless. If anything, too much is made of Holmes' obvious flaws as a human being: his recreational drug use, patronizing arrogance, indifference to the feelings of others, preoccupation with the workings of his own mind. This Holmes reminds me of Dorian Gray. It is only his love of solving crimes that keeps him from committing them.

The story is pretty pedestrian. This isn't quite as bad as "the butler did it," but it's close. I won't spoil the movie as others here have by saying more. I liked the scenes where Holmes is reasoning out who the killer is. This was clever, unforeseen, and quite believable. But, from the time the chief suspect is identified, until he was finally caught .. the entire climax of the movie, in other words .. was ..well, trite, clichéd, and elementary, my dear Watson ..

Kudos to Helen McCrory and Perdita Weeks in supporting performances.

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
A standard serial killer story in Victorian dress but a poor plot, 3 January 2005
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

When Dr Watson sees the police recover the body of a young woman who has been strangled by a silk stocking, he takes the chance to float the case before Sherlock Holmes, who is languishing in an opium-driven semi-retirement. Holmes takes the case once he finds that the girl is not a prostitute as the police said but rather a member of a very rich family – with a stocking in her mouth to match the one around her throat. When a second murder is uncovered with the same traits, Holmes suspects a serial killer and sets out to track him down before he can strike again.

Following on from BBC's previous festive Sherlock Holmes special we have an original story from the same writer that adapted the Hound of the Baskervilles a few years ago. From the very start things look promising, with a new Holmes, a foggy London and a mysterious murder. It is not long though before it becomes clear that the plot could have been used in any standard crime TV special as it is just a serial killer detective mystery the likes of which are all over the ITV schedules at times. This is not to say it is bad because it is watchable for the most part but the writing doesn't develop the story and maintain tension at the same time and the film's lasting impression isn't helped by an ending that is just terrible in conception and unconvincing in delivery. Little details and additions are not that good (like Watson's fiancé) but then generally the story isn't that great.

The delivery aside from the plot is still enjoyable with a good sense of atmosphere and place in the sets and costumes. The London fog thing was all a bit overdone and looked like it was done with a fog machine on a sound stage (which of course it was). The acting is good and I must admit that, despite my concerns, Everett did make a good Holmes – superior without being unlikeable, insightful without being insulting. The "drugged up" thing is not as cutting as it once was but the film did still do it well. Hart is better as Watson than he was before as he is lighter and has more of a character. They make a good pairing despite never being up to the standard of Rathbone and Bruce but I would watch them together again. The support cast has plenty of well-known faces but the script never gets the most from them.

Overall this had potential but the foundation is not there in the form of a great plot. The script doesn't keep the mystery and tension up while the whole thing falls down with a sloppy ending that was like a slap to the face after spending 80 minutes trying to get into the story. Acting, sets, costumes and (more or less) direction are all good but with the plot falling flat these qualities are not enough to make a great product.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes, 31 March 2007

Author: johnny-08 from Rijeka,Croatia

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.

---

9 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Watchable, but plodding, 27 December 2004

Author: Libretio

SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE SILK STOCKING

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

London, 1902: During a period of heavy fog, Sherlock Holmes (Rupert Everett) and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart) go on the trail of a serial killer who targets attractive young débutantes.

Simon Cellan Jones' atmospheric chiller uses the standard trappings of Holmesian lore in this all-new adventure, but Allan Cubitt's script seems as much inspired by the likes of MESSIAH and SE7EN as anything by Arthur Conan Doyle. The decision to locate proceedings within an era of deadly 'pea-soupers' adds an element of Gothic horror whilst simultaneously obscuring a multitude of budgetary deficiencies, and several crucial set-pieces unfold in a swirl of impenetrable fog. Holmes is depicted as an isolated figure, rendered separate from the general run of humanity by his ego and intelligence, who finds solace in drug use and the minutiae of criminal investigations, though his antipathy toward women is challenged here by Watson's American fiancée (Helen McCrory), a trained psychologist who shares many of his preoccupations and refuses to be cowed by her position within society. Everett and Hart never really connect as a team, and an early sequence in which Watson appropriates a number of Holmes' investigative techniques to query the details of a crime scene promises plot developments which never really come to fruition. The killer's identity is fairly obvious, too, but there are further twists - many of them linked to the hypocrisy and corruption of upper-class Edwardian society - which should satisfy most armchair mystery buffs. Watchable, but plodding; typical BBC fodder.

---

13 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Truly Great adaptation, 26 December 2004
Author: Richard Ward (richie_w_018@hotmail.com) from United Kingdom

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the silk stocking is an original story and not an adaptation of one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyles.

It is a much darker and more realistic story than some of the other adaptations which have graced our scenes.

The Great Detective was portrayed by Rupert Everett who does a fine job at it. To me he is a great Sherlock Holmes he portrayed the character well and was faithful to the books as well as adding his own touches, Although he did not wear the characters trade mark dear stalker hat he was a more realistic Holmes.

His partner Dr Watson is also given his own story line in the film and is not just a bumbling sidekick or a piece of the scenery as in some other adaption's This adaption of the story had a recently retired Holmes take on the case of a serial killer who was murdering young women in a most unusual way, with plot twists and turns around every corner.

This BBC TV movie was truly breathtaking and has to be seen to be believed. hopefully the BBC will make a follow up with the Rupert Everett as the detective again.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Superb Acting; Trite Script, 19 November 2005

Author: rubyslipper from Maryland

Rupert Everett has the aquiline profile and world-weary vocal delivery that are necessities for a screen Holmes, but he (and the excellent actors around him) are hamstrung by a cliché- ridden script. Sherlock Holmes, telling Watson to "keep your breath to cool your porridge"?? The last two times I heard that expression on screen were both in adaptations of Pride and Prejudice--and I certainly mean no disrespect to either of them. Holmes is also made to deploy a Mary Poppins aphorism about pie crusts and promises--perhaps you remember it from your childhood Disney viewing.

This is a good-looking production (apart from the occasional wobble from the annoyingly popular unsteadicam), though I have it on good authority that London fog did not swirl rapidly around the lampposts and chimneypots. Beautifully designed interiors include a Duchess' drawing room, a Victorian graveyard, an underground lair of the villain (he always has a lair, doesn't he), and a ceramic-tiled morgue. Costumes are in a muted color palette of cream, black, olive green, and brown, and the girls in their costumes for a classical tableau look as if they have stepped out of a Alma-Tadema painting.

In addition to Everett as Holmes, the production is graced with a uniformly strong cast. Ian Hart brings an acerbic vigor to the role of Dr. Watson, and Neil Dudgeon injects Lestrade with some humor. The superb Helen McCrory, as Watson's American fiancée, initially appears brash and pushy (she calls Holmes "Sherlock" throughout, even though his best friend Watson invariably calls him by his last name), an often-observed trait of American women in British film/TV productions, but she is too good an actress to keep to that one-note character. Guy Henry is disgracefully underused--give him a bigger role!

The story is a new one, which is not in itself a criticism; it is creepy and intriguing. The most glaring problem of the show is with the script; I hope that director Simon Cellan Jones continues to make more Holmes stories--but that writer Allan Cubitt will not.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history