Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.'Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking' has garnered comparisons with the 2002 version of 2002's 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' with Richard Roxburgh, namely perhaps because of Ian Hart returning as Watson. It is hard to tell which is the better of the two, this has the better Holmes, he has more screen time and doesn't have the flaw of having very bad visual effects. The earlier adaptation though does better with the relationship between Holmes and Watson, didn't feel as clichéd or anachronistic and Richard E Grant's Stapleton eclipses anybody in the supporting cast here. Neither are among the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations (the Jeremy Brett Granada adaptations are hard to beat as well as the best of Basil Rathbone's films) , though neither are among the worst, like the Peter Cook.'The Hound of the Baskervilles' or any of the Matt Frewer Hallmark films, especially 'The Sign of Four'.Certainly there are a lot of strengths with 'Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking'. It looks great. There is a real creepiness and authenticity to the settings and production design and the costumes show a careful eye for detail. It's beautifully photographed, the use of fog was at times overused but quite effective. The music is suitably eerie.Writing intrigues and entertains, with some nice references here and there, while there are some genuinely creepy and suspenseful moments. It is also intriguing for its depiction of the upper class. It's paced in a lively fashion generally while still having some breathing space. Direction is competent enough at some points but low key in others.Of the acting, the standout is Ian Hart's loyal and intelligent, but also at times light-hearted and feisty, Watson, to me one of the best, most interesting and most faithful interpretations, rather than the buffoon seen in some interpretations (Nigel Bruce being an infamous example). Rupert Everett is a very worthy Holmes, perhaps too young and healthy-looking, but also shrewd, thoughtful and charismatic. The two do show a good chemistry together. However, the script is not always focused and riddled with clichés that tends to make one groan rather than smile. There are forced in modernisations too that just come over as sloppy and anachronistic. There are moments of tension and suspense here, but would have been made better if there were more suspects (far too few here), if the perpetrator was not revealed or too obvious too early and if the ending explained things better, felt less hasty, has more suspense and less of a vapid, predictable feel and didn't feel as anti-climactic or underdeveloped. The ending really was a slap in the face, and was rounded off by a scene that strived to be poignant but ruined by clumsy writing.Generally the supporting cast while not terrible are not used to their full potential and are somewhat bland. Neil Dudgeon's interesting Lestrade fares best and Helen McCrory does what she can. The drug use is over-emphasised and out of character and the more strained relationship between Holmes and Watson had far more subtlety in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', it was veering on the too antagonistic here. Overall, decent and interesting but a little underwhelming as well. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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.

As a huge SH fan,I've seen nearly every film about the Great Detective,good,bad,and indifferent. And I've seen a gamut of actors take on the role of Holmes,from the great(Jeremy Brett,Basil Rathbone,Christopher Plummer)to the good(Peter Cushing,Eli Norwood)to the so-so(Nicol Williamson,Ronald Howard)to the pits(Roger Moore,Jack Palance,Tom Baker,Matt Frewer). It's hard to define where Rupert Everett stacks up. He has the height,the cold clinical nature,the drug use down pat. But he is simply too young for this role. In 1902,when this story is set,Holmes would be in his late 40's,according to the Canon. This Holmes doesn't look to be a day over 30! And Ian Hart is totally miscast as Watson-he is too small and scrawny,tho he is shown to be a competent and forceful presence when need be. The plot itself is interesting-a tag team of identical twin psycho-sexual killers,and the London of 1902 is presented well-foggy streets,the chasm between the classes,and Scotland Yard's gradual acceptance of the SH method in their own work,tho it is surprising to see Lestrade,tho still an imbecile in his field,as a "ready to beat a confession out of you" thug. The notion of a woman shrink,especially one well versed in the mysteries of sexual perversion(and who smokes,also),would have been unthinkable to the stuffy Edwardians of that day. All in all,tho,not a bad effort.

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.