Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004)

That might be the longest title you'll see in this blog. I guess it counts as TV, despite being a one off drama, it was only made for a television audience, so I'm claiming it.

There could be several tangents during this blog entry, so be warned.

Made for the BBC, this was a one off Sherlock Holmes story, but instead of being based on any of the original Conan Doyle stories it was a unique adventure. What they DID include was Holmes, Watson, and Inspector Lestrade. Watson is engaged, on the verge of marriage (which doesn't fit with the Conan Doyle stories at all, as Watson found his future wife in the first adventure and was married throughout the rest of his adventures) but his fiancee plays a key role in helping Holmes with his current investigation, so lets not split too many hairs.

The basic plot is a series of girls being murdered, their bodies found to be clothed in the garments owned by the previous victim, one silk stocking forced down their throat and another tied around their neck. Suspicion falls on the house of a Duke who is to host a ball to be attended by the current King.

Ok, first tangent. This is technically a sequel to another BBC Sherlock Holmes production two years earlier. On that occasion it was the famous 'Hound of The Baskervilles' and so many critics began comparing it to previous interpretations on the classic story. Personally I was a big fan, it brought something new to the tale, and ranks up there as one of the greater interpretations of the story. It did well to keep close to the original book (except for a a slight embellishment for the ending) and had fine performances for all the cast. Richard Roxborough wasn't known to me, but played a great Holmes, and Ian Hart was perfect as Watson. In this new story Ian Hart returned as Watson, but now we had the more famous Rupert Everett as Holmes. Personally I think he does a fine job, but tries a bit too hard and almost seems to be attempting to be Basil Rathbone in modern form, rather than invent his own interpretation of the classic character.

Tangent number two, how do I judge a Sherlock Holmes story that isn't based on an original tale by Conan Doyle? I'm a great fan - of the books and all TV and cinematic versions - but when it's an original whodunnit, the only way I can judge it is if I feel it works as a Holmes adventure. I guess it does, but I really couldn't see Conan Doyle getting involved in the subject matter that is covered in this particular adventure. I could almost imagine it as a Midsomer Murder (but back dated to the turn of the 20th century)

Spooky I should mention Midsomer Murders, considering Inspector Lestrade in this adventure is played by Neil Dudgeon - the new Inspector Barnaby

I think the main flaw is it feels too modern, despite being set in the first decade of the 1900's. No one puts in a bad performance, but the script could easily be lifted and stuck in an episode of Cracker and no one would bat an eye-lid. There is also a lack of that quintessential Sherlock trait where he takes a quick glance at something and comes up with thousands of facts about the person. I can't think of one Holmes story where he doesn't do that, except for this one.

I could go on for days, comparing it to Rathbone, the Hammer films, the Granada Jeremy Brett shows, the modern 21st Century BBC tales, but I won't. I'll leave it as an open ended review of a tale I don't hate, but nor do I rank it in my top 5 Sherlock Holmes films. Thumbs up? No. Thumbs down then? Not that either. It's wavering. I might come back to this review in a few weeks if I finally settle on a fixed opinion.