walsh-campbell This production is first rate on many levels. The adaptation of the story is really superb, with many clever choices that work to condense and focus the narrative. The writers could, however, have done a better job in demonstrating Holmes applying his deductive powers to the clues presented. And the depiction of Holmes using cocaine while investigating a case is both totally contrary to the original stories and a jarring and distracting note that does absolutely nothing to further the story.The CGI "hound" is actually pretty awful. They would have done better with a real dog, altered as Stapleton is said to have altered him in the story.Other than that, the production values are quite excellent. And Ian Hart is one of the best Watsons ever to grace the screen, small or large. John Nettles' Dr. Mortimer is also excellent, and Richard Grant is one of the best Stapletons ever. The rest of the smaller parts are also well done.However, Richard Roxburgh delivers only what I would call a workmanlike rendition of Sherlock Holmes that is never fully convincing. The problem is that he never quite inhabits the role, especially in terms of Holmes' intense energy; he is simply too laid back. It also doesn't help that he bears no physical resemblance to the canonical Holmes. Actually, Richard Grant would have been a better choice to portray Holmes.Nevertheless, this production most definitely rewards the viewer with many moments to appreciate.

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.

nicolas caesar This is perhaps the 28 Days Later/Trainspotting version of the novel showing Holmes and Watson as almost psychotics, shooting heroine, nearly breaking necks with their canes. Richard Grant's scene stealing is challenged by the leads and altogether mix well for great entertainment. Far different from the Hammar version. I was impressed by the direction, acting, story, dialog but not the 'hound'. It was a sort of puppet then bad cgi, but it didn't ruin it for me. It may not match the novel and I can only assume it was to throw some curve balls. Watch it, be your own judge. I saw it as a different take on the duo. Watson isn't the bumbled Oliver Hardy he is in most adaptations and Holmes is ravenous.