ThiefHott Too much of everything

Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

ThatMOVIENut Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxborough) and his aide Watson (Ian Hart) are engaged to investigate the bizarre death of Sir Charles Baskerville, the latest victim of his family's horrible 'curse'. Watching over the last in the family's line, Sir Henry (Matt Day), Holmes ventures onto the forbidding Dartmoor moors to investigate the demon hound.Before Cumberbatch and Moffat, the BBC tried to reinvigorate Holmes with this 2002 TV film, amping up the action, atmosphere and body horror of Conan Doyle's most famous novel, and with mixed results. Right out of the gate, the film's first problem lies in its lead: Roxborough, while not terrible, doesn't make for a terribly distinct Holmes. He doesn't exude intelligence, mania, authority or a sense of control like many other interpretations have, and as a result does deflate the proceedings, never fully commanding the scenes the way a Holmes actor ought to.The second issue is a confused mission statement: the screenplay mostly condenses Doyle's story well, and straddles the line of the supernatural very well, if not enhances the whole contrast further with a well handled a séance sequence, but adds a few things. Turning more low key elements like an interrogation of a cabbie into little action scenes, as well as changing bits of structure and characterization from the various cast, would likely annoy purists, but then throwing things in like Holmes' drug addiction (which honestly is never properly explained in the context of this film) really only makes sense to those already familiar with the books, so just who is the film made for? And the third is the actual Hound which, while in terms of design is actually fairly effective, a nightmarish hyena-dog-tiger hybrid, the CG even in '02 leaves much to be desired, and comes off as a tad rubbery and not meshed well with the environment.All these issues do knock down what is otherwise a fairly decent mystery thriller: the cast are good with Richard E. Grant chewing scenery as the devilish Stapleton, and director David Attwood does a good job at creating an uneasy and haunting atmosphere on the moors, keeping the Hound as a background menace, building up to it slowly while it howls in the fog. However, such details do not deter the facts of the case: this Hound never rises higher than being, purely and undeniably, elementary.

greenf74 This might not be the worst Sherlock Holmes movie in existence - "The Seven Per Cent Solution" was both gross and dull, and it has to be said that Peter Cook's allegedly comic version of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" in 1978 was truly dreadful, an abysmal abomination for which no excuses can be made, and even Cook himself said as much. Still, this travesty of the great old yarn comes pretty close. The villain of the exercise is the scriptwriter, Allen Cubitt, who seems to have contempt for the story, for its author, and, indeed, for Sherlock Holmes. This Holmes is not only utterly uncharismatic; he's arrogant, cruel, irresponsible and - the final insult - incompetent. Richard Roxburgh, badly miscast, seems bored and is boring. It must be conceded that Watson is not depicted as a buffoon, which is something - indeed Ian Hart might, with a good script, have been one of the great Watsons, alongside James Mason and Colin Blakely - and there are a few nice bits of atmosphere at the start, where the scenery of the Isle Of Man is effectively employed. But that's it. One might wonder, incidentally, if Cubitt has ever actually read the novel - he seems to have based his script more on the 1939 movie with Basil Rathbone, which is far from ideal as a version, but still lots more fun that this. The CGI hound, by the way, was probably inspired by the poster for the 1959 Hammer version. That was much more interesting, too.

freedomFrog In this new adaptation of Conan Doyle classic book, Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh, "Moulin Rouge") and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart, "Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone") investigate the mysterious death of sir Charles Baskerville, whose body was found in the moor surrounding his antique manor."The hound of Baskerville" is probably the most well-known Sherlock Holmes adventure and as such as been adapted many times (IMDB references no less then 19 versions). Yet, this fine BBC production proves that there is still something new to say about this story and ranks as one of the best adaptation.First, it got the story right. Despite the presence of Sherlock Holmes and the rational ending, "the hound of the Baskerville" is more a Gothic horror tale then a police procedural. And this is how the story is approached in this movie. The dark and moody set (the mist-covered moor, the sinister Baskerville hall) creates a great Gothic atmosphere which fits well with the occasional use of gore. The plot follows quite closely the one of the book except for one or two welcome additions (the Christmas party notably, as the the movie was produced as a BBC Christmas special), which helps keep the pace of the movie fast and engaging.The other strong point of this production is the original portrayal of Holmes and Watson and of their relationship. Both are depicted as much younger and more physical then in previous version. Neither the heroic figure portrayed by Basil Rathbone nor the neurotic outsider portrayed by Jeremy Brett, Holmes is conceived as a risk-seeker. This leads him to make mistakes of judgment, his recklessness putting both his client, Watson and himself in danger, and his selfishness alienating Watson for whom he has nonetheless a deep rooted affection as witnessed by his reaction when Watson is shot or the final scene where Holmes, surprisingly, apologizes to Watson for his behavior and seems genuinely concern he might have reached a point of no return in his relationship with his friend. In this context, the controversial decision to make Holmes a genuine cocaine addict make good psychological sense. In the books, Holmes was taking drugs only when he was not on a case, to stimulate his brain. Here, on the contrary, he takes the drug at moment where he seems to be the most stimulated (at the onset of the case, and, more shockingly, in a toilet of a restaurant while Lestrade and Watson are waiting for him to arrest the murderer).Overall, although still an intellectual genius, this Holmes is less of a superhero apart from humanity, and more of a flawed human being. This is reinforced, probably unintentionally, by the fact that Richard Roxburgh lacks the charisma and the intensity previous actors (notably Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett) have brought to the role. This would have been a major flaw in any other Sherlock Holmes movie but not in this one, given its peculiar approach of the character.Portrayals of Watson have come a long way since Nigel Bruce depicted him as an idiot in the Basil Rathbone movie. Watson is now portrayed like he actually is in the Conan Doyle story, as a warmth and kind man, having many of the human qualities that Holmes lacks. But in this version, Watson, superbly played by Ian Hart and who, given his screen exposure, is actually the real main protagonist of the story, is even more competent then usual, proving himself a very efficient detective in his own right and a man of action. He is also given a much darker edge then usual. In the books, Holmes often treats Watson in a way that could be considered rude or manipulative. Interestingly, this movie takes a realistic look at how Watson would reacted to it, as he is shown as deeply hurt by Holmes' behavior. "I don't trust you", he tells him and even, during a dinner at Baskerville Hall, perhaps expressing his resentment for his friend, mocks him.This is a much strained friendship then the one usually depicted. It is also a more realistic one, given Holmes' peculiar behavior. It gives the impression to see the real Holmes-Watson relationship, before Watson watered it down for his reader (interestingly, this fits also with Holmes' cocaine addiction. Had Holmes existed, rumors of his cocaine addiction would have spread that Watson would have tried to brush away by inventing the myth the Holmes was not using the drug in a recreational way but only when a case could not provide the amount of intellectual stimulation he needed).Hence, all in all, because of his engaging plot, atmospheric settings, superb production value and of its original take on two characters of whom everything seemed to have been said (notably after their definitive interpretation given in the Jeremy Brett series), the latest version of "the hound of the Baskerville" is a must-see for any Sherlock Holmes aficionados.

mickran While the plot veers slightly from the original I think that's no bad thing as this particular Sherlock Holmes adventure has been committed to celluloid several times. The story is well told and some of the suspense is handled very well. Where this falls down horribly is in the acting or perhaps casting. Sherlock Holmes is witless and boring, charming in all the wrong ways. He doesn't impress as the genius detective but more as a kindly older uncle. Likable but harmless. However for most of the beginning of this tale Dr. Watson carries the story as Holmes is still back in London and he is the biggest digression. He is a creepy and bitter personage with an aggressive and unpleasant tone towards all around him. His portrayal would be better suited as a suspect in an Agatha Christie mystery, arrogant and aloof. This is not the good doctor at all. Lord Baskerville is played as a spoiled and arrogant Yank that that looks down on all those around him. With the other household members correctly playing suspicious and unnerving roles it really leaves you with very little to like. Watch either the Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett versions for much more enjoyable and honest interpretations of this great mystery.