Rating: 
Summary: It's not Holmes - superficial attempt misses by miles
Review: To show Holmes taking cocaine during a period of time in which he is engaged on a case reveals that those who made this film utterly misunderstand the character. I sympathise with wanting to make Holmes fresh, but this isn't Holmes at all. If you don't want to do Holmes, fine, invent your own character or render another literary detective. But to make this film and call this Sherlock Holmes is just stupid.
Rating: 
Summary: A gripping, fast paced movie that never lets up.
Review: I've been a long time Sherlock Holmes fan and I found this movie to be as exciting and compelling as any version of Hound of the Baskervilles ever filmed. A lot of unneccessary exposition is cut away, (thank goodness - no boring recount of Sir Hugo's life AGAIN!)leaving a lean, atmospheric, action packed story. Richard Roxburgh makes a wonderful Holmes, perfectly capturing the great detective's sharp wit, quirky humor and incisive style. Roxburgh's Holmes is much more a man of action than we've seen in a while and its a nice change to see Holmes' physical strength, as well as the mental acumen. (No slam on Jeremy Brett intended; his health excluded too much physical action, particularly near the end of the Granada series.) Ian Hart was a surprising Watson, passionate and strongly independent. Hart's Watson easily carries the part of the movie where Holmes is absent, usually a Waterloo for many 'Hound' movies. This Holmes and Watson are feisty and combative, not quite the smooth working team together we've come to expect. Their relationship seems more like a ongoing work in progress, learning to confide in and trust one another. (One hopes they'll make more movies to address this issue.) Richard Grant is a nasty Stapleton and Matt Day is one of the few to make Sir Henry Baskerville actually interesting. The production is very gothic, enhanced by some Danny Elfman-esque music. Although there are a few flaws, namely Holmes' taking cocaine on a case and Watson's rather startling, gossipy dinner conversation about his friend that makes him look disloyal, on the whole, I found this to be one of the best versions ever.
Purists, quit carping and enjoy. Its been a very long time since we've had something new to talk about!
Rating:
Summary: I didn't realize a Holmes movie could be this bad
Review: Where to begin with the flaws in this horrible production? I'll start with a gratuitous scene in which Holmes takes cocaine while cogitating on a case - a nauseating scene which completely violates the Holmes canon. Holmes never used cocaine while working on a case (he only resorted to it from boredom), and the original Baskervilles story does not contain the word "cocaine" anywhere in it (check Project Gutenberg's electronic text files). The scene was utterly unnecessary and jarring. The snide, sneering Holmes portrayal completely misses the mark. Holmes could be contemptuous, it's true, but he could also be a genuine gentleman, which this characterization completely overlooks. I can't go on.... I don't want to think about this travesty any longer. If you liked the book, get the Granada version with Jeremy Brett instead of this ....
Rating:
Summary: Atrocious and brutal
Review: This adaptation of "Hound" is trying some different angles, partly in order not to be doing the same old thing over again. I understand that. First off, it's trying to put Holmes and Watson on more of an equal footing, or to give their relationship more of a give-and-take anyway. I'm sympathetic, and I liked the actor playing Watson pretty well. Secondly, it's trying to play the story as a sort of gothic horror thing -- which would be in keeping with the original novella, I guess. Okay, fine. But this does extreme violence to the original story, the central characters, and especially the plot. As a version of The Hound of the Baskervilles, it's exceptionally brutal and lurid and faithless. It violated my sense of what Arthur Conan Doyle's characters were like, and it disregarded the original story in stupid, pointless ways that had more to do with liking the actor who played the bad guy than anything else. You only need a few examples of all that: The villain is revealed halfway through, for one. For the second: there's a suicide here, luridly filmed and quite disturbing, that doesn't occur in the book. The same character lives in the book. And finally: the villain dies in a particularly ironic way in the book while attempting to escape to his hideout on the moor. In this version, he is shot in the face. On camera. By Watson. I kid you not. This isn't utter trash, but it was inappropriate and irritating, and I wished I hadn't watched it. My kids were watching with me at first -- I wanted to show them how exciting a good Sherlock Holmes story could be -- and I dearly wished we hadn't started with this one. Get the Jeremy Brett version, is my recommendation, if you want a modern Holmes.
Rating: 
Summary: well acted but not true to canon
Review: This was an extremely good and thought provoking version of what I've always believed is by far the best Holmes story. The acting in this was extremely good, easily five star, particularly the characterization of Stapleton(who was played as bumbling in some of the other versions, to much less impact). Also, this really captured the brooding environs of the moor. However, the one thing I really didn't like here was the portrayal of Watson as almost antagonistic to Holmes. At one point he practically screams at Holmes to let go of him. While Doyle's Watson was definitely not the incompetent portrayed by Nigel Bruce, he would NEVER be antagonistic(to that degree) to Holmes, and that makes this, overall, four instead of 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Weak Watson undermines otherwise solid HOUND
Review: This BBC production of the classic Sherlock Holmes story, which was aired on PBS in January, 2003, is both one of the more thrilling AND one of the more frustrating interpretations of this novel in years. One positive is the casting of Richard Roxburgh as the Great Detective. While being a somewhat untraditional choice with his fair-haired features, Roxburgh perfectly captures the sharp-edged keeness of the character. Though not on a par with Jeremy Brett, who has definied the role to modern audiences, Roxburgh does remind one of Basil Rathbone with his clipped and dynamic delivery. It is a solid performance. Unfortunately, Roxburgh is saddled with a Watson and a script that undermines the classic Holmes/Watson dynamic. Alan Cubitt's script gives an antagonistic spin on the relationship, making Watson come across as more testy and snappish than normal. While Hart does justice to this concept, it causes one to lose all sympathy for a character that audiences need to have some identification with. This is especially true as Watson takes center-stage for much of the story. As a result, Hart's Watson lacks any warmth and humanity. It also doesn't help that Hart's demeanor and ferret-like features would be better suited for the role of Inspector Lestrade, Holmes' Scotland Yard foil.
However, there is much to enjoy about this flick. It truly invokes a creepy, haunting atmosphere and the climax with a computer-generated hound is one of the more intense versions ever filmed. Also, the supporting cast is very solid with Matt Day as the newly noble Sir Henry, while Neve McIntosh is heartbreaking as the ill-fated Beryl. Also, at a 100 minutes, the film clips along at a good pace. If you're a Sherlock Holmes purist, you probably won't find the rather cranky Holmes/Watson chemistry in this flick to your taste. However, I would give this a qualified recommendation for this version's atmosphere and solid performances of most of the cast, with Hart's Watson being the rather jarring exception.
Rating:
Summary: A fresh approach....
Review: It's difficult to make a new movie out of the Conan Doyle stories. The Jeremy Brett series was so true to the text that any other attempt to film the stories exactly as written will seem a bit stale. This film makes what are, for the most part, good decisions in updating it. We already know that Holmes is a genius of observation-- therefore, the scenes in which he deduces all about Mortimer from his walking stick are not truly necessary. Mortimer's admiration of Holmes's skull is later reassigned to Stapleton-- where it is more effective, and creepy than it would have been otherwise. I was left in suspense as to how events would unfold-- and I know the novel backwards and forwards! Richard Roxburgh did not fit my idea of Holmes-- but he can act, and that is more important. The only other widely available film with Roxburgh in a major part is Moulin Rouge. He plays the Duke. A comparison of his performances was revealing. The only truly weak spot was the computer generated hound. I am glad that they didn't try to pass off a breed of dog as the hound-- we just can't be seriously menaced by a trained dog that someone can walk down any street, so something larger, stranger and meaner is definitly called for. But their CGI hound doesn't move like a real animal. It has no weight. I could not believe in it.
Rating:
Summary: Where is Jeremy Britt when you need him?
Review: It's probably unfair for me to review this "mess" since I'm an avid Sherlock Holmes fan. Any resemblence to this production and the story is purely accidental. Aside from a "strawberry blonde" Sherlock Holmes and a chinless Watson, the screenwriter took so many liberties with the original story that I was beginning to wonder if I had tuned in to the correct program. Seldon being chased across the moor by two cops who were then dragged under by quicksand, and Holmes injecting cocaine were not in the story. And these events occurred during the first 15 minutes! The production went downhill from there. If you want to see the best film or tv version of Holmes ever made, pick up a copy of any of the Jeremy Britt episodes. And if you want to see how "The Hound of the Baskervilles" should really be filmed, the Jeremy Britt version is the very best.
Rating:
Summary: Exciting new version of familiar story
Review: I quite liked it, actually. I've seen most of the film adaptations which are available and this was one of the best, IMO. Holmes fans will want to own the DVD for sure.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: Fortunately I saw this on PBS before buying the DVD. I would only consider this DVD if you are NOT a Holmes fan. It is such a departure from the book that really only the hound makes it recognizable. Gone is the opening deductions about the walking stick...Dr Mortimer now has a wife who holds a seance to talk to the dead Sir Charles...gone is the telegram to Barrymore. Mr Franklin is gone and Laura Lyons (which leaves unexplained why Sir Charles was in the Yew Alley that night). Added are fight scenes between Holmes and the cabby as well as one with Selden. This production clearly takes great liberties in its quest to put some sensation and action into the story. For me it is too great a departure. I'll wait for the Brett DVD due out later this month.
|
