An original BBC story with Conan Doyle's two main characters Sherlock Holmes (Rupert Everett) and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart), "The Case Of The Silk Stocking" takes place in London in the early 1900s. A young girl of the English aristocracy has been murdered. Some of the story characters are aristocratic and not very likable. Major scenes take place in a high brow, Victorian setting.The plot is clear enough and there's some genuine suspense. But there are too few suspects. I kept waiting for some strange plot twist; it never came. The story's underlying premise I found disappointing. And the solution to the case is revealed too soon.Although Holmes presents many of the traits and mannerisms we would expect from Conan Doyle's original character, in this film, as portrayed by Rupert Everett, the character comes across less intellectual as merely haughty and hostile, not unlike the aristocratic characters into whose world he has entered. Except for the charming young females, the entire bundle of characters is too snooty and superior for my preference.Probably the best element is the editing, which skillfully blends concurrent events in an interesting way and shows character relationships across the entirety of the principal cast. Intermittent background music is nondescript and a bit loud. Costumes and prod design are expertly crafted for a difficult social class and historical era. Color cinematography is indifferent but competent. They went a bit overboard with the fog machine.Well worth a one-time viewing, "The Case Of The Silk Stocking" strikes me as your typically well-directed but assembly-line-produced murder mystery. The result is a modern update of an iconic fictional detective investigating an original, but none too believable, story; by-the-numbers script; and a well-known but miscast actor in the title role.

This more recent film is excellent because it uses the modern story telling technique, and technology, of the 21sy century. For example the editing is quite creative. In this film Sherlock Holmes is more advanced in his life since Dr Watson is going to get married and he is depicted as addicted to both opium and heroine. The second characteristic is that he collaborates better with Scotland Yard and even accepts or condescends to have a desk there. The film is extremely hostile at least, if not even worse, against the aristocracy. It is unimaginable how much this case turns around a lady Chatterley's lover syndrome. And these nobles, in that case a woman, who makes up with the system by cheating it in its back, are unethical to the utmost. That lady prefers seeing young girls in good families around her disappear in the hands of a sadistic serial killer rather than even acknowledging her definitely dangerous liaison. The film is also more realistic about the dirty reality of Victorian and Edwardian England. Even with the nobles and their palaces, dust, dirt and even slime is just under the surface. Don't scratch too much, and I am not only talking of the slime you discard in a dustbin or a garbage can. The whole case is endangered though by some careless acts of the police. They don't seem to know about handcuffs and of course do not carry guns. On the other side Sherlock Holmes playing it psychological, even psychiatric and definitely ruthless leads him close to the truth but he escapes catastrophe out of pure luck. He is too sure of himself, vain with his superiority, in fact the idea of opium and heroine is a genial idea from Sir Conan Doyle: it explains that superiority complex the man has. He does not have a chip on the shoulder, nor a stick up his nose, but he sure carries the whole world on his shoulders, at least so he thinks.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

For over 40 years I have read and re-read "The Complete Sherlock Holmes", and have never found an adaption as far from the original as this one. Even the patriotic versions of the 40s with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are better than this. I gave up after 25 minutes. The only thing close to Conan Doyle's creations are the names of the main characters. Holmes is rude to Watson, who was a friend of Holmes. Here, Watson is portrayed as an annoyance to Holmes. Holmes looks around and announces results, without any of the explanations of why. There is nothing of the atmosphere or feel of late 19th/early 20th century London found in Conan Doyle's work, except maybe fog. This is modern day tripe dressed up in Victorian clothes, or as Holmes might have put it, "The curious incident of a pastiche in the night!"

Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson and Inspector Lestrade investigates the killings of young aristocratic women in 19th century London.Ian Hart is fine as Watson (as he was in "Hound of the Baskervlles") but - Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes??? No, totally miscast - right down teaming with Charlton Heston as the detective in "The Crucifer of Blood".The plot is not too good either. Well, it IS a well-planned detective story. But it seems more like a plot for series like "C.S.I." or "Inspector Lynley" than for a movie about Sherlock Holmes. There is no Holmesian feeling at all.This said, I enjoyed it in some moments. It's in fact rather creepy, and the sets are beautiful. 3 stars of 10.