Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Silk Stocking (DVD)

Author's product rating:   

Did you enjoy it?	Indifferent to it
Story	Satisfactory
Characters / Performances	Satisfactory
Special Effects	Standard
How does it compare to similar films?	Satisfactory

Advantages:	Entertaining
Disadvantages:	Not sure about Everett, weak story, set in the wrong period

Recommend to potential buyers:

yes

Full review

Sherlock Holmes is fast succumbing to his drug habit when a new case takes his interest, and, with the help of Dr Watson, he manages to pull himself together enough to work on the case. A number of girls from wealthy families are going missing, later found dead. All the girls appear to be young and innocent, yet someone obviously wants them wiped off the face of the earth. Then one young girl manages to survive the kidnap. Can she lead Holmes and Watson to the murderer? And will the latest forensic advances help them on their way?

Since I was a child, I have loved Sherlock Holmes stories, whether on screen or in printed book form. I am, however, rather choosy when it comes to who plays Sherlock Holmtes. So many actors have taken on the role, only to fail miserably. My personal favourites are Jeremy Brett, who is the perfect Holmes in my book, and Basil Rathbone, who adds a comic touch to the role without going too over the top. Knowing that Rupert Everett was going to take the role on intrigued me. I am a huge fan of Everett; he is great in comic roles and the fact that he is easy on the eye doesn't hurt.

As Holmes, however, I am not sure that Everett was really an ideal choice. He didn't really do anything drastically wrong in the role; he is a good actor and he managed to pull it off without any major misdemeanours. The problem is that the way the film is directed doesn't allow Everett to be shown in his best light. Nor is the script all that good. In the end, I found myself criticising the way that the film was made and forgetting to concentrate on the characters - unfortunately Everett's performance wasn't strong enough to draw me in. As far as I know, there are no plans for him to appear as Holmes again - from my point of view, to do so would be a mistake.

My initial opinion of Ian Hart, who plays Dr Watson, was much the same. However, he did grow on me during the course of the film and I ended up really liking him. It is a tall order to play a character so well portrayed by Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett series, but he brought his own interpretation of the character into the role and I thought that it worked well. This Watson is much more competent, much more like Conan Doyle's Watson - in fact, at times, he carries Holmes rather than the other way around. I am not familiar with Ian Hart as an actor, but I will look out for him in the future.

I wasn't particularly impressed by any of the supporting actors. There is a rather strange addition to Holmes' team in the form of Mrs Vandeleur, played by Helen McCrory. She is an American pscyho-analyst, affianced to Watson. I think she is a made-up character for the film - I certainly don't remember her in the books. McCrory gives a competent performance, I just wasn't convinced that Watson would marry such a woman. Perdita Weeks is also competent as Roberta Massingham - her character isn't very well developed, but she does look good, which is really all that was necessary. Neil Dudgeon as Lestrade, Holmes' police officer associate, is completely forgettable - I can't even remember what he looks like.

This film has been generally panned for being so far removed from the Conan Doyle stories, that it is virtually unrecognisable. It is set in Edwardian, rather than Victorian, Britain for example, and the clothes reflect this. So does the inclusion of technical advances, such as fingerprinting. I am not an expert on this, but do know that it began to be used in the early twentieth century, and am pretty sure that it is after Holmes' time. As the entire story depends on such technology, it does mean that it relies less on Holmes' brain and more on cold hard proof. I am not all that concerned by this. It makes the film slightly different from the average Sherlock Holmes film, something that I am sure director Simon Cellan Jones intended, so that his work does not disappear in the enormous sea of films featuring Holmes that already exist.

What did put me off this film was the weak story. Conan Doyle's original stories are always taut and very cleverly written. This one, put together by Alan Cubitt, is really quite weak, and could probably have been told in half an hour because there is so little substance. The director seems to have relied on the costumes and setting to carry much of the story - not a smart move considering so many have criticised it for being unrealistic. The solution to the crimes is particularly poor, and was the final nail in the coffin for me. The story reminded me more of Basil Rathbone's films, which often had weak stories - the difference is that Rathbone was much more charismatic as Holmes.

There is a director and producer commentary included as an extra, but nothing else. I only listened to part of it and didn't find it particularly interesting.

I didn't hate this film - it was entertaining enough to keep me watching until the end. I just think it could have been so much better. Everett's casting wasn't quite right for me, and with the poor script to boot, it was just not good enough. And of course, everyone will compare it to the series starring Jeremy Brett, who was so good as Holmes. I'm annoyed that someone bought me the DVD when it was shown on TV the other day - I don't regret watching it the once, but I doubt I'll ever watch it again. Just about recommended, but wait until it is shown on TV again.

The DVD is available from play.com for £2.99 (very cheap considering it was only made in 2003).

Classification: 15 (for various dead bodies and the portrayal of drug use)

Running time: 99 minutes