It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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.

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?

Not sure about spoilers, but never hurts to be safe.Despite being a very big Sherlock Holmes fan, I try to be open minded about different interpretations, even if it's something I haven't thought of, especially so, in fact, if the actor plays it well enough. Admittedly it is fairly difficult to do so with adaptations books, as they give more detail and solidity to the character that's difficult to take different ways. Even so, there can be different interpretations, but this one was no where near Holmes at all.I love the old 1984 series with Jeremy Brett, which I'm sure a lot of other Holmes fanatics also enjoy. The only problem I had with Jeremy Brett (and his Watson, for that matter) were their voices, which I couldn't quite fit into the tone I used to read in the books. But in all other instances, I adored Jeremy Brett and both David Burke and Edward Hardwicke for their performances, since I take also take Watson to scrupulous account ever since Nigel Bruce.It seems the case is exactly the opposite for Mr. Everett here. To me he appears good in word and physical accuracy, but completely wrong with personality. And given the choice between which to be more accurate to, appearance or personality, I would choose personality, hands down. But it seems like they went for appearance here and I found that extremely annoying. All the time I was watching I didn't recognise the Holmes I saw on the screen, indeed, for the first ten minutes, I assumed Holmes was some other man to further the story along, until Watson followed him and called him by name. This wasn't the Holmes I read when I was seven, just like Nigel Bruce was in no way the Watson I had adored also.The obvious point would be Holmes' cocaine 'addiction.' But anyone who has read Sherlock Holmes would know that Holmes used cocaine only when he had no case, when he was bored and listless and needed something to fill that seemingly interminable gap between cases. He used it to feel thrill and excitement in place of his work and not much else. Certainly not as someone who kept being drawn to it despite everything. He had a mystery in this episode, and so his sudden use of the needle came as a bit of a surprise to me.But then, perhaps he did need it to feel excitement. He certainly didn't show it anywhere. No buoyancy about the case, no ebullient interest in the curiosities that arose, just stoic, ambivalent irritability to everyone he met and interacted with. Including Watson, which I should elaborate on here.Everyone so far has commented on Holmes' lack of characterisation in this, but it was his interaction with Watson that annoyed me above all. Holmes is not and never is Holmes without his Watson, his Boswell, his friend, partner, and brother. One of the main things I enjoyed about Granada Television's serials were Holmes and Watson's interaction and dialogue, the way they complemented each other and respected each other to the highest level, even if Holmes was infrequent in saying so and it always seemed to me, to be a bit ineloquent for a moment, that they just had a whole crapload of fun. They had a companionship and understanding of each other that, annoyingly, was not shown in this movie. From the first few minutes of conversation it was already evident that this was not the friendship that Holmes and Watson should have. Even Watson's admiration of Holmes was absent and replaced with exasperation and thin temper for his friend's eccentricities. No gasp of astonishment when Holmes revealed himself from a costume that by the way, seemed rather anachronistic of the late Victorian and early Edwardian era, just a look of slight betrayal and lack of amusement.And while we're on the subject, I found myself constantly baffled by the sudden appearances of police fingerprints, phones, and physical violence in the cells. I'm hardly a historical expert on this, so I let them go mostly when I noticed them, assuming I was just ill-informed, and yet, they are somewhat advanced for the time period Holmes is and was intended to be set.With that said, I always enjoy a competent Watson, and so Ian Hart made me happy in that respect. Even if that was slightly dampened by the jarring sounds of his fiancée/wife's voice.There were a few parts that I quirked a smile or chuckled for which I upped the stars, but it was definitely not enough to rectify the whole movie. The fact that they also kept trying to make it seem more Holmesish by inserting various dialogue from other stories was in itself a bit irritating. And the music! I enjoy the soundtrack, I do, but it did really seem like they were saying "Look, we took this time to make a really good soundtrack with violins and cellos and everything, so listen! Listen!"Perhaps the casual viewer might find this interesting, but as Holmsian I found it rather exasperating.

I didn't find Rupert Everett believable as Sherlock Holmes. He seemed much too young and stupid. Of course I am comparing him to Jeremy Brett who in my opinion was the very best. Dr. Watson was fairly insipid. In fact the whole cast lacked spark. I also found the telephone and the constant cigarette smoking distracting. And while I know Holmes was an opium addict I didn't think that his addiction should have been given quite so much play.I hope that if Masterpiece Theatre decides to bring anymore Sherlock Holmes mysteries to our shores they find a better actor to play the part.