Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004)

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.)

...and the worst Watson I have seen. Like others, I was eager to see another actor take on Holmes and Watson... Mistake! A poor performance all around. Jeremy Brett is the only Holmes, followed closely by Basil Rathbone. The perfect Watson... The "bumbling" Nigel Bruce. Shame that this rendition did not come up to the mark.The only redeeming feature of this film was the closing music by Johann Sebastion Bach. Plain poor. A Holmes written and performed for an American audience I suspect (Although I cannot prove !)

There is a strange convention in some British adaptations of recent years: enormous trouble is taken over sets and costumes to recreate the look of previous periods with as much accuracy as possible. On the other hand, the script takes no such trouble. Rather the reverse: the writer and director go all out to include as many trendy (and totally anachronistic) features as possible. The ultimate example of this is the ITV Marple series, but this Holmes story is not far behind.Other reviewers have pointed out some of the blatant mistakes (e.g. no period of mourning, way too 'advanced' female psychoanalyst), but what about the language? It's not only anachronistic, it's clichéd, too. "The killer's still out there", "crime scene", "for what it's worth", etc. To put these howlers in the mouth of Sherlock Holmes is particularly unfitting.The real cringe-maker was the announcement "King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra!" Did the aristocracy really need to be told which number the line of Edwards had reached and what the name of the King's wife was? Or was it just a clumsy bit of information for the benefit of the TV audience? Rupert Everett is no Holmes. He does not sufficiently embody that combination of cerebralism and sense of dramatic urgency that marks out Holmes when 'the game is afoot'. He might been reasonably OK if he'd been given lines to speak that were in the style of Conan Doyle.

This well-made movie might upset some purists,but it will certainly gratify those upset and annoyed by the Brett style of performing Holmes.At the beginning of a Holmes film,the first thing I ask is atmosphere; Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004) offers that,and much more than that.First,the atmosphere:the fog,the morgue,Holmes' needle ….The atmosphere,the narration and the lead are all Poesque,and this is enormously satisfying.While the movie surely does not belong to Holmesian orthodoxy,or to the Holmesianism of strict observance,it has freshness,inventiveness and savor .It is a very interesting flick,in the strongest sense of the word.It is interesting to see Holmes at the morgue,or veiled in mist.His relation with Watson might disconcert some;we see an exceeded Watson.Second,the lead is more than OK."Watson" too is interesting,as he is more nervous and jumpy--at least,a change.Third,the movie is very finely scored.This Holmes fantasy is polluted and spoiled only by the psychoanalytical element--the woman that teaches Holmes about various sexual deviations was so uncalled for ...