I love this movie so much

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

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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.)

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?

"Stocking in the throat. One tied about the neck. Signs of bondage. These are the killer's calling card. This man leaves his mark on his work like a painter leaves his signature upon a canvas." Sherlock Holmes says this while studying the corpse of a young woman...a girl, really, born of a wealthy, aristocratic family who had gone missing. She was the second, and now Holmes has been brought out of his bored lethargy. He will find the killer, and the hunt will take him into some of London's noblest families, where arrogance and concern over position is found far more often than love or even much affection, where the butlers are as much snobs as their masters, where hanky-panky with the servants can be excused as long as it's discrete. Traditionalists who are fond of a Holmes who looks like Basil Rathbone and mysteries which definitely do not include a dose of sexual fetishism may not be thrilled with this version of The Great Detective. Holmes is played by Rupert Everett, a fine actor, but who is younger than we're used to. Holmes is easily bored, we all know that, but here we don't just hear about his fondness for the seven-percent solution, we watch him shoot up. Mary Moran, Dr. John Watson's wife-to-be in The Canon, has disappeared. In her place as Watson's fiancée is Dr. Jenny Vandeleur (Helen McCrory), an American who doesn't hesitate to call Holmes 'Sherlock.' "I'm a trained psychoanalyst. Surely you knew that," she says to Holmes while she, Watson and Homes are at dinner. "I didn't know that," Holmes murmurs. "I find it so strange," she says, "that you two could be such close friends and yet not talk about someone as significant as a fiancée." "I take no interest in such matters," Holmes says. "No," she continues, "but as I understand it, Sherlock, you dislike and distrust women." "Women are one of the necessary evils." "I take it you've never been in love," she asks. "My brain has always governed my heart," he replies. She beams at Holmes and says, "Would you submit to analysis? You'd make a fascinating study." To my way of thinking, a Holmes story can work if the actor playing Holmes is first-rate at his craft, if the mystery (and the writing) is clever, if the actors give performances that are detailed and authentic, and if the production values capture the mood and look of the period. Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking works on all four levels. Rupert Everett's Holmes comes off as a bit dissipated because of boredom. He also is intense and honorable when he's on a case, even a little vulnerable. Ian Hart is very good as Watson. The mystery is well mounted, well played and well written, with lots of condescension coming from the upper classes. The story also is off-beat sexually, and not just games with a handy footman or two. There's plenty of attention to feet along with deep inhalations of slippers. Production values are very high, with much fog in the streets and graveyards, a chilly stone morgue, the clip-clopping of horse-drawn carriages and immaculate, bespoke clothing. When the upper- class English dress for dinner, the presumption of inherited privilege almost seems reasonable. Holmes is such a vivid concept that any number of actors have been able to make him interesting. Rathbone is one, although I think seeing what Hollywood did to Watson would make Conan Doyle retch. Ian Richardson, Jeremy Brett, Peter Cushing, Christopher Plummer...all have done fine jobs. I'd add Rupert Everett to the list now. And with the case solved and Watson and Jenny Vandeleur married and set to leave for their honeymoon in Paris, the three of them are finishing lunch. "What will you do with yourself, Sherlock, now that your Boswell's away," Jenny asks. "For me," he replies, "there's always the needle." "Holmes!" Watson says sharply. "Good old Watson," Holmes says with a slight smile, "you're the one fixed point in a changing age. No, I shall sit and stare at the wall like Whistler's mother, a study in gray. And now, it's time you left." Perhaps while they're gone he'll encounter Irene Adler.

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.