I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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.)

So this will be a spoiler in itself, but I didn't like the disagreeable character portrayed by Mr. Everett, nor the little quarrels with dr. Watson and Mrs. Hudson in the first minutes of its running time. But I left when the bourgeois family of high-society girls appeared for the first time. Holmes is a great Victorian invention, but I had the feeling that from Victorianism this made-for-TV film would only retain the china and affected manners, not the charm! And in fact, previous reviewers state that this is "much darker" than usual. Dark -- an adjective I once loved and now almost pity! Not for hardcore Sherlockians, perhaps, this could be recommended to any other lost soul.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking is an insult to Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.This film is a very bad serial killer film, and have nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes, actually it is an insult to Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and to the viewers! The story is week, and predictable. The characters are nothing like the original characters. In the film Sherlock Holmes smokes cigarettes and not a pipe, and have a problem to solve a case that a monkey solves. A woman psychiatrist in the time of the film is another joke! This film is a real waist of time.

Only one quick thing to point out. 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. In fact if stories are really to be done faithfully, then from 1887 to 1893, the actor in the role should be between 33-39. In any event this is never brought up because of the belief that holmes is an elder statesman. Remember he is 60 around the time of world war one. So please give all of us a break with this age nonsense.The overall production was well mounted and since the original stories have been done so well by Jeremy Brett, a new pastiche always fun because it is new. We are sometimes married to these movies being complete retreads of the old stories. The reality is that new stories can also have value of fleshing out and perhaps exploring situations we have not seen Holmes in before.