Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking
Warning! Plot points may be revealed below!
You did a truly magnificent job -- the plot, the characters were simply amazing! Rupert Everett is, without a doubt, the best Sherlock Holmes ever. He does a good job portraying the addict look and he puts a new angle on it, I would have to say a more sexy, mysterious and clever angle. He got me hooked from the start. Just seeing that beginning was awesome. That is saying a lot because I am a real critic but this is, without a doubt, the best movie I have ever seen. I am going to get the DVD and watch it 100 times! All and all the movie was the best. The plot had amazingly great twists. The actors and actresses were great and most of all Sherlock was out of this world! Go Rupert!
This is the best movie! I am obsessed! Rupert Everett rocks! I completely and thoroughly agree with London Evening Standard's review! "Was there ever such a brooding, handsome and strangely sexy Sherlock Holmes as this... ?"
My first thought was "Um, he looks a little young to be retired..." And "Um, I don't think I read this one!" It was my husband's first exposure to Sherlock Holmes, and now I regret letting him see it. I think I will get a Jeremy Brett version and hopefully wipe this one out of his memory!
In Rupert Everett I believe we have a worthy successor to the late and much beloved Jeremy Brett (the best Holmes ever). I hope that Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking will not be the last we see of Everett and Ian Hart as Holmes' loyal friend and assistant Watson. Yes, the game is afoot. Let's just hope it doesn't end too soon.
I wish to protest the airing of Sherlock Holmes. Not only was it off the beam so far as Holmes is concerned, it was disgusting. I have no quarrel with the performances or the way it was mounted, though there was far too much fog, but to have police brutality, a screwed up set of twins and the continual display of corpses, especially female corpses, makes me think someone in the drama department is a little off, too. Don't malign Holmes in such a way again.
San Jose, CA
Who wrote the music at the show's end and name of the piece? Many thanks.
The composer of music heard in the production was Adrian Johnston, an Emmy-winning musician (for Shackleton, 2002) who also scored Masterpiece Theatre's The Lost Prince. Brief clips are also heard of two Strauss compositions -- the Fruhlingsstimmen Waltz and the Indigo Marsch, as well as a piece entitled After the Ball by Charles K. Harris, but the music heard at the show's end was composed especially for this program by Johnston.
Somehow, I missed seeing this Sherlock Holmes story the first time around. My husband and I were fans of Jeremy Brett and his wonderful, intense portrayal of the famous detective, but we were very impressed with Rupert Everett's interpretation as well. However, we were not impressed and were actually downright disturbed and disappointed, by the very horrifying scenes of violence and torture of young girls in this non-Conan Doyle story. Despite the fantastic acting, lighting, production quality, etc., it's the same graphic, sordid sensuality, sexuality, and violence that is substituted for real drama on network TV. If Masterpiece Theatre doesn't stay within the limits of good taste and propriety in its programming, we'll just have to fall back on videos and DVDs of previous series (such as the Sherlock Holmes series with Jeremy Brett, Agatha Christie's Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot, and period dramas.
I just finished watching Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking. The actors were excellent. The teleplay and the way the director interpreted the scenes was awful! I hated that the camera jumped around as it did. A mystery of suspense is supposed to make one anxious. If that is what the director had in mind by having the camera jump around the cast as it did, I found it annoying. Because of that, it took all of my energy to stay focused and to not change the channel. It was so obvious that the fog was being pumped onto the scene. I found it humorous actually. I guess I could say it was the structure of the story and the directing that ruined what could have been a very good and very interesting story. I would still like to see another Sherlock Holmes story with Rupert Everett as Holmes and Ian Hart as Watson. I hope the next screenwriter and director are more tuned in to know how to create a good mystery. Thank you for listening.
Rupert Everett's portrayal of Holmes seemed too far outside the scope of the character as drawn by Arthur Conan Doyle. I also disliked the emphasis on drug-induced insights into the crime. I did not find the notion of twins using some rare singleness of mind to achieve horrific crimes as producing a story worthy of Doyle. I did not think Holmes was meant to be so unsure of himself as to lag behind Watson in taking action. Watson seemed to be at odds with Holmes at crucial moments and not to serve as a worthy, intelligent partner. Everett seemed too aristocratic, even blasˇ, but to a creepy degree rather than as the eccentric scientific genius Doyle created to give us assurance that crime does not pay.
I think this production was absolute muck. It was very disappointing to see that Masterpiece Theatre thinks it must pander to current mores in "entertainment" -- serial killers, sexual obsession, and inventions that pretend to be fact. This was not a story written by Arthur Conan Doyle! But certainly, most viewers would think so. Why, oh why, did you think you had to invent this when there are many stories still left to be dramatized? And Everett looked and acted like Frankenstein. It was a huge disappointment. I know many other eager viewers who were equally dismayed by this "sexed-up story" when everything about Holmes stories make you think and reason, not pander to grotty cheap baseness.
Home | About The Series | The American Collection | The Archive
Schedule & Season | Feature Library | eNewsletter | Book Club
Learning Resources | Forum | Search | Shop | Feedback