Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking

Plot synopsis:
In November 1903, young women are being killed in London, each with a silk stocking stuffed down her throat. Watson seeks help from the retired and disenchanted Holmes, who determines that the victims are well-born ladies, not prostitutes. Evidence found includes a thumbprint, a pair of ladies' dancing shoes, broken glass, a strong smell of chloroform and a silk stocking removed from a victim's gullet. It seems that the killer has a foot fetish.
Holmes interrogates a survivor - a young girl who was apparently set free by her captor because she has a club foot - and arranges for her to "accidentally" see the footman that he suspects is the killer, despite his ironclad alibis. The girl identifies him as her kidnapper, but the thumbprint clears the suspect. Holmes then baits a trap for the killer: he uses the sister of a victim and has her perform in a classical tableau at an event attended by the King and Queen. Her Grecian-Roman costume is revealing, and her sandals expose her feet. After the performance, she walks away to be alone; the suspect drugs her and is quickly caught by Holmes and placed in custody. The sister returns home and is tucked into bed by her father.
However, the suspect's thumbprint doesn't match the evidence. Holmes suspects the killer has an identical twin, and that the real killer is still on the loose. Holmes telephones the father of the "bait" sister to warn him, but the real killer has kidnapped her from her bed just minutes earlier. The audience sees the killer carrying her over his shoulder as blood drips from her face, where he cut her with broken glass.
The police force the other twin to lead them to his brother, but he escapes the police. Holmes finds the killer and his victim just in time; the young woman has a silk stocking tied around her neck, and Watson has to cut it and perform something that looks like CPR. Holmes gets the killer twin to confess that he wanted his victims' attention, because they looked at him while in captivity. Both twins are then taken into custody.
At the end, Watson marries an American psychoanalyst and leaves on honeymoon, and Holmes is left sitting alone at the table.

Tags: mystery, murder

Review:
Stage, screen, and television adaptations or features using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters turn on one simple, inescapable point: do we believe the actor as Holmes?
If the answer is no, then whatever other attractions the story holds are worthless.The answer here is clearly yes: Rupert Everett is very good as Sherlock Holmes.
Rupert Everett's replacement of Richard Roxburgh for a second post-Jeremy Brett installment of big budget Holmes adaptation is quite a wise one, adding as it does a touch of youthful energy to the detective's armoury.
Corpses, evil smiles (and that's just Ian Hart's Watson!), drug use, great music score, and plenty of dense smog enhance the proceedings further than the decent acting or script.
As a big Sherlock Holmes fan, I was looking forward to "Silk Stocking," but was very disappointed with Rupert Everett's performance.
Apart from the names Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, there's really nothing to connect this original BBC TV movie to the original Conan Doyle stories.
Even the plot twist about the killer's identity comes in Edwardian dress, as it could only ever possibly fresh and original in disguise pretending to be a story written a hundred years ago.The story constantly forces modern elements incongruously into Holmes's necessarily, fundamentally low tech world.
The story is set some time after the Victorian era of the classic Holmes stories, apparently to justify the use of telephones and modern police techniques like fingerprinting.
Watson is about to marry an American psychiatrist, which opens the door to the modern serial killer psychodrama whose emphasis is on woolly sexual motivation and grotesque patterns of behaviour, worlds away from the traditional Holmes story where logic and deduction solve single victim locked room murders.
Eventually Inpector Lestrade himself time-travels to the 1970s to give a suspect an Sweeney-style kicking to make him talk.Rupert Everett as Holmes drifts through the first half of the story like someone on a mixture of recreational drugs, which is clearly the writer's deliberate intention.
He claims his 7 per cent solution stimulates his mind in times of boredom, a world away from the use of soporifics to deaden his brain.Ironically it seems that in order to make these seasonal specials featuring Holmes himself the BBC abandoned its own excellent Holmes homage, the quite superb Murder Rooms, which succeeded in every respect that this film fails, injecting modern style and sensibilities while still honouring the source material.
They were faithful in period detail and in many respects to the type of detective story which suits the Holmes character, and where they took a post-modern approach were able to underscore rather than undermine the quality of the original.
Rupert Everett has the aquiline profile and world-weary vocal delivery that are necessities for a screen Holmes, but he (and the excellent actors around him) are hamstrung by a cliché- ridden script.
The superb Helen McCrory, as Watson's American fiancée, initially appears brash and pushy (she calls Holmes "Sherlock" throughout, even though his best friend Watson invariably calls him by his last name), an often-observed trait of American women in British film/TV productions, but she is too good an actress to keep to that one-note character.
The film has got some great one-liners, some are quoted on the website.Sit back and enjoy the best Holmes ever.This one goes into Holmes' drug taking as well.We don't see enough of Rupert Everett.
While the main stars differ somewhat from the stereotypical Holmes and Watson, one hardly gets a chance to ponder this, as this little gem is fascinating from the start.Excellent acting and a plot which is solid and built up in such a manner that the viewer is enticed to think along with Mr. Holmes make this BBC production quite a perfect installment in the series.
Everett and Hart show great chemistry and I wouldn't mind the BBC to carry on making more Holmes movies in this manner - if anyone over there happens to read this - keep 'em coming!9/10 easily..
The character of English writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is probably one of the most popular invented detective.
There is only one exciting scene where the fog creates a kind of spooky atmosphere.The BBC has not ruled out the possibility of further Sherlock Holmes films in the future.
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 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.
I'll admit, I wasn't expecting too much when this appeared on CBC earlier tonight, but I was pleasantly surprised.Rupert Everett, while no Jeremy Brett, is a very good Sherlock.
1 hour 40 minutes.It would have tightened up the loose ends, and helped quite a bit.The BBC is best at the Holmes stories, and I would love to see another production starring Rupert Everett, who is certainly the best since Jeremy Brett..
SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE SILK STOCKING Aspect ratio: 1.78:1Sound format: StereoLondon, 1902: During a period of heavy fog, Sherlock Holmes (Rupert Everett) and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart) go on the trail of a serial killer who targets attractive young débutantes.Simon Cellan Jones' atmospheric chiller uses the standard trappings of Holmesian lore in this all-new adventure, but Allan Cubitt's script seems as much inspired by the likes of MESSIAH and SE7EN as anything by Arthur Conan Doyle.
Holmes is depicted as an isolated figure, rendered separate from the general run of humanity by his ego and intelligence, who finds solace in drug use and the minutiae of criminal investigations, though his antipathy toward women is challenged here by Watson's American fiancée (Helen McCrory), a trained psychologist who shares many of his preoccupations and refuses to be cowed by her position within society.
Everett and Hart never really connect as a team, and an early sequence in which Watson appropriates a number of Holmes' investigative techniques to query the details of a crime scene promises plot developments which never really come to fruition.
When I heard that they were making a new Sherlock Holmes to be shown at Christmas and that Rupert would be playing the lead, I was quite excited.
I was disappointed also with Everett's performance which lacked the spark or energy shown by Jeremy Brett when he played Holmes in the TV series.Alas I don't think it was anywhere as good as The Hound of The Baskervilles that was on the other year, which had Richard Roxburgh as Holmes; he was much better..
I was looking forward to this one, I do like a bit of Sherlock Holmes at Christmas, and this was worth a look.Not bad job by Rupert Everett, not my first choice for the part, but what do I know.
A deferent kind of Sherlock Holmes, and this time he is shown with flaws, in fact Dr Watson has the brains.
An odd use of London, as you don't see much of the place.Think it would be good to see Rupert Everett have a go at some more Holmes.Ian Hart is back as Dr Watson as good as he was in "The Hound of the Baskervilles".
I thought Rupert Everett did a great thing in impersonating sherlock Holmes.
Everett on the other hand really plays the eccentric hand very well, and of course proves to be right always.Ian Hart as the ever dumb assistant Watson obviously is having a lot of fun in his role; the Watson inherent vanity contrasts superbly with Holmes superior mind.
Though the story in its foggy setting is in itself a very nice thing to watch on a dark December evening, I guess the acting part of the two lead actors is more exciting than the allover predictable course of investigation.A very good scene indeed is the moment when Holmes throws some dice to estimate depth...
Holmes and Watson were at least in their mid- to late twenties in the 1880s, so an Edwardian (1903?) setting would have them each pushing 50.I don't recall seeing this Everett guy before, but I think they could have done better.
I have read all the original Sherlock Holmes stories many times.
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.).
Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories.
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.
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'.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I have to agree with Mr. Ward this is a much darker adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.Rupert Everett is sublime in this role.
His pallid faced Sherlock puts you in mind of the post Sir Arthur Conan Doyle books like "The 7% Solution"."Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking" should NOT be missed.
I hope we see more of Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes.
While not strictly in any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books (to my knowledge) she could bring added potential to future movies.If you'd like to see the darker side of Sherlock Holmes watch this movie you won't be disappointed..
If holmes is believed to be born in 1854, then in 1903 he is 49, Rupert Everett was about 45 when he did the film so he was certainly in the correct age range.
After the excellent BBC version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', I was really looking forward to 'The Case of the Silk Stocking', although not in general a great fan of Conan Doyle.
Rupert Everett, excellent at playing dilettantes and spoiled playboys, fails to convince us that he has the brainpower to be the great detective (and his voice is oddly tentative, especially after Jeremy Brett's barking-- why won't someone cast Richard E.
Rupert Everett's Holmes makes me miss Jeremy Brett all the more.
Everett looks much too healthy for Sherlock Holmes, particularly one who, at the opening of this version, has "retired" into a life of opium use.Well, we can't have Jeremy Brett, but is a good story too much to ask for?
I didn't find Rupert Everett believable as Sherlock Holmes.
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???
It's nice to see a Watson that can really stand up for himself, stay a little bit angry at Holmes, but still stay friends with him at the same time.I didn't like how they tried to cram every darn cliché into the movie either.
When Dr Watson sees the police recover the body of a young woman who has been strangled by a silk stocking, he takes the chance to float the case before Sherlock Holmes, who is languishing in an opium-driven semi-retirement.
When a second murder is uncovered with the same traits, Holmes suspects a serial killer and sets out to track him down before he can strike again.Following on from BBC's previous festive Sherlock Holmes special we have an original story from the same writer that adapted the Hound of the Baskervilles a few years ago.
Little details and additions are not that good (like Watson's fiancé) but then generally the story isn't that great.The delivery aside from the plot is still enjoyable with a good sense of atmosphere and place in the sets and costumes.
A fine Sherlock Holmes with Rupert Everett, along with fog, the privileged class and a dangerous fetish.
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.
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.
****may contain a bit of a spoiler*********Being a huge fan of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, I was delighted when I discovered Rupert Everett was just as captivating as Brett, a bit younger, but every bit as dashing.
I'm sure I could think of more.There were some good points, Everet looked like Holmes, Costumes were wonderful.
Ian Hart also makes a different sort of Watson, but there is chemistry (and a bit of underlying tension!) between the detective and the good doctor.
The character seemed entirely fake, and her lines were filled with statements designed to shock (and then we're supposed to believe that Watson finds her blue speech charming).Ian Hart was lovely to watch, but Rupert Everett's portrayal did nothing for me.Lots of decent work from the costume department, but the story itself was not that interesting and Holmes was not magnetic..
I don't know whose idea it was to cast Rupert (should be the next James Bond) Everett as Holmes, or to bring back Ian (his ears can pick up satellite television) Hart as Watson but they didn't do themselves any favours.
Aparrantly the production team's thinking was since they had made (well, ruined) the best of the Sherlock Holmes stories the previous year (The Hound of the Baskervilles, you know the one, the one where Holmes hardly turns up at all, best my eye!) They'd have to make up their own.
I was excited at the thought of seeing this film, as I am a huge fan of both Ian Hart and Sherlock Holmes.
To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of Rupert Everett's Holmes either-I personally prefer the late Jeremy Brett.
It's a pleasure to see the intoxicating Rupert Everett as the intoxicated Sherlock Holmes, but the pleasure soon ends.
Watson (Ian Hart) refuses to tell Holmes pertinent information to get back at Holmes' withholding (and thereby further the plot) and manages to outrun Sherlock's coach to get to a crime scene (what with his war wound from India and all) and perform CPR on a victim 50 years before even mouth-to-mouth was invented.
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.
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.
Just think of all the great Sherlock Holmes stories that Doyle wrote.
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.
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.
Shame really since these characters DO have a major impact on how Sherlock Holmes stories play out effectively.