La revanche de Sherlock Holmes

I'll admit it. I'm a big Holmes fan. I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could really write. However, this cute little TV movie leaves something to be desired... although I'm not sure what. (Yes, I do type like this after watching old movies. No, I don't like it, either.) Jeremy Brett - the other Holmes I've seen - was creepy at first, but he sort of grew on you until you no longer thought of him as an actor, but as Holmes himself. Everett... just... no. I don't find eyelashes very professional-looking.

I'm fairly sure that this was written from scratch - basically, that Sir Doyle didn't write it. This explains a few parts that are a bit ... well, dubious. Also, the perpetrators?! I know, there are lots of other outrageous solutions in the Holmes series, but still, it seems like a silly way to solve a mystery. "Hey, let's write a Sherlock Holmes with SOCKS and have TWI-" oops, nearly gave it away. Moving on...

One thing to note is that I liked this Watson more than other one. He seems a bit more alive then Hardwicke. That's always good.

6/10 - Worth a watch, if you like Sherlock Holmes. Otherwise, you may want to rent a nice Harry Potter.

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. Indeed, the whole film runs at a cracking pace, dropping clues like confetti. But what really makes this adaptation shine is a growing sense of purpose in terms of atmosphere. Arthur Conan Doyle's creation is plunged further into its roots as a purveyor of the grotesque and shocking. 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. Well worth a look on a dark night...

I really liked that movie. The way Sherlock Holmes is portrayed here strongly reminds me of the 2010 TV show, called Sherlock (which is really great). In contrast to every other Sherlock movie I've watched before, this one resembles the 2010 Sherlock the best and I really like that version of him.

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.

As a big Sherlock Holmes fan, I was looking forward to "Silk Stocking," but was very disappointed with Rupert Everett's performance. He gave the distinct impression of being bored all the way through. Also, I was surprised by the scene of him shooting up during the case. My understanding of the "real" Holmes is that he was bored in between cases, and that's when he enjoyed his 7% solution. When in the midst of a case, he was excited and engaged and focused -- none of which Everett showed in his performance. My favorite Holmes remains Jeremy Brett, who showed actual modulation in Holmes' personality (irritation and boredom before the case presented itself; excitement, sometimes to a bizarre extent, during a case; rapture at listening to a classical concert etc.) rather than the sleepy, Johnny-one-note performance of Everett. Four snores.