Leofwine_draca Just think of all the great Sherlock Holmes stories that Doyle wrote. 56 short stories, four novels, and all of them at least above average to good. So why on earth did the BBC see fit to write a new story, complete with gaping plot holes, for their 2004 Christmas TV film? Instead of having the eponymous detective hunting down some classic villain in one of Doyle's Victorian landscapes, we get a modern-mannered Holmes investigating a sexual pervert with an interest in paedophilia, a plot with psycho-thriller origins far more suited to a modern-day thriller like MESSIAH than a classic murder mystery. It really makes me cross, especially when the origins of the character are undermined and new characters introduced willy-nilly.Everett is hopeless in the leading role, too openly camp to be convincing, and his portrayal is totally unlikeable. Bring back Richard Roxburgh, that's what I say. Complete with false eyelashes, lip-stick, and a heavy line in chain-smoking, Everett mumbles all of his lines. Saying that, the character is false too, actually going down the wrong track for quite a time and getting flummoxed very often; certainly a far cry from the Holmes of the stories. Shots of the detective creeping into the bedrooms of teenage girls are simply ludicrous and betray a huge ignorance of the period as a whole. Yes, Holmes liked to disguise himself, but did they really have lifelike latex masks at the turn of the last century? The rest of the cast really fall into the background; there are no stand-out turns here, but a whole lotta bad acting instead. The best of the bunch is Ian Hart, returning as Watson from 2002's HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. At least he tries in this one, which is more than can be said for everyone else present. So, there you have it: a Sherlock Holmes film which betrays all of the characters; which turns the story into a shabby drawn-out shambles and which introduces a female psychoanalyst to top things off. How dumb can you get?

Robert J. Maxwell This film has gotten some negative reviews but I'm not certain why. This is a later, Edwardian Holmes. The period detail seems precise enough. The telephone came into common use after it was installed in Buckingham Palace by Queen Victoria, which acted as a kind of placing on of hands. Men smoked cigarettes as well as pipes and cigars, although women didn't, unless they were strong-minded aristocrats or adventurous Americans. Fingerprinting was routine.Of course Rupert Everett is neither Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, but at least he's tall. The character as written more or less fits Conan-Doyle's image except at the beginning, when Holmes insults Watson and tries to get rid of him. A bit too abrasive there. And Everett's default expression seems to be a sneer.Nevertheless, all the most enjoyable aspects of the Holmes tales are present in this pastiche. True, the opening scene is a little gloomy. An opium den in London. A Chinese man is seen lighting the rolls of dope in the bowl of a pipe and the camera pans slowly up to a face we must correctly assume is Holmes'. The next scene is a shot of the Mudlarks out of Dickens, sloshing around in the black mud of the Thames, clouded by industrial smoke, and finding a woman's dead body amid the muck.Thereafter the pattern becomes more familiar. Holmes shoots up once, but it's immediately after he reaches a dead end, is waiting for evidence to appear, and advises Watson that we must "possess our souls in patience." I liked it. The budget must have been sizable. The appointments are high end and the wardrobe is lavish. But the story, while simple enough in outline, involved some complicated goings on among the aristos and there were times when I couldn't attach the names to the correct figures. I had no trouble with Rachel Hurd-Wood as the thirteen-year-old kidnapee though. (Wow.) Helen McRory as the aristocrat-in-chief gives a masterful performance a s a cold, self-contained, half-mad bitch. And Michael Fassbender is outstanding as the icy footman.Yes, it's a serial killer movie but it doesn't seem like one. Conan-Doyle could have written most of this. And the detective could have been no one but Holmes -- not Philo Vance or Nero Wolfe or Charlie Chan.

ZeryabFilms Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking is an insult to Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.This film is a very bad serial killer film, and have nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes, actually it is an insult to Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and to the viewers! The story is week, and predictable. The characters are nothing like the original characters. In the film Sherlock Holmes smokes cigarettes and not a pipe, and have a problem to solve a case that a monkey solves. A woman psychiatrist in the time of the film is another joke! This film is a real waist of time.

gyecosta I gotta disagree completely with 'mgmax' of Chicago.I watched it on TV very recently. This was the 2nd time it has been shown on the ABC (In Australia). I recommended it to everyone I know- sounds cheesy I said, but it's worth watching. Why? For Rupert Everett, that's why.This movie is all about Rupert Everett. Forget all that stuff about the plot- this is Sherlock Holmes for Christ's sake!. Everett is simply great as Holmes. The film has got some great one-liners, some are quoted on the website.Sit back and enjoy the best Holmes ever.This one goes into Holmes' drug taking as well.We don't see enough of Rupert Everett. I just watched the Comfort of Strangers- now that's got a thin plot.