Rating: 
Summary: UNUSUAL INTERPREATION OF HOLMES AND WATSON
Review: Arthur Conan Doyle, MD, had a lot of spare time on his hands between patients. To fill the empty hours, he created Sherlock Holmes. He based Holmes on medical professor Dr. Joseph Bell, known for his awesome powers of deductive reasoning. Sherlock and Holmes were the names of two of his favorite cricket players. Sherlock Holmes is the most famous of all Victorian literary creations. Mail still arrives at 221B Baker Street seeking his help. There are 10 films based on THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. This striking Masterpiece Theater version about the strange executioner hounds that kill Baskerville family members takes a few liberties from Doyle's text but captures the intensity of the terrifying tale. I'm not a Holmes fanatic or purist and was totally engaged by this production, even though I was familiar with the basic plot. Also, I was thoroughly entetained by the interesting and somewhat unexpected interpretations of Holmes and Watson. And, unlike other reviewers who may be a bit picky, the CGI hound is not so glaringly bad that it takes you out of the story, in fact, quite the contrary. I recommend this nice-looking DVD transfer of a great mystery with unexpected twists and a scary climax.
Rating: 
Summary: Superb
Review: I have enjoyed all the film versions of this great novella that I've seen (e.g., Rathbone/Bruce, Cushing/Lee, Brett/Hardwicke), and before I saw this one I felt the Cushing/Lee adaptation closest to the story's spirit. I am convinced that Conan Doyle would approve this new adaptation for it meticulously depicts: (1) the evil of Jack Stapleton (played to perfection by Richard E. Grant) manifest through the atmosphere he creates (i.e., rational fear of the natural dangers of the moors and the fear of the supernatural (the Baskerville curse and the mythic hound) as he works towards the end of murdering Sir Henry Baskerville; and (2) the true character of Dr. John H. Watson and the mutual respect between him and Holmes. Those familiar with the Sherlock Holmes canon will applaud this version's depiction of Dr. Watson as the brave, intelligent, discerning, and strong-willed companion Conan Doyle created. The sole shortcoming of this version was that while it depicts Holmes as the sleuth-hound, it does not show either Holmes' deep concern for justice or his compassion for human suffering. (Viewers who want to see these traits should see either Rathbone's or Jeremy Brett's performances.) Richard Roxborough's depiction of Holmes is one-dimensional but -- incredibly -- that does not diminish this superb adaptation. Purists, stop complaining and let go of this one; it gives too much pleasure.
Rating: 
Summary: well done
Review: This version of the Hound is very well done. Matt Frewer was the best Holmes of recent years, but Richard Roxburgh gives a fine performance and Ian Hart is good as Watson. Lots of atmosphere and some re-toolong make this an interesting take on the oft told tale.
Rating:
Summary: Hounded by re-makes with a TWIST
Review: There are two very good aspects to this new Holmeswork presenting the Baskerville legend. #1 The musical score is excellent. #2 The scenery is atmospheric and well suited to the purpose of the plot. But in looking at certain sections of film,can we seriously believe that our rather heavy set escaping prisoner outruns those guards? Oh, they fell into the bog...well that explains it! Watson as a rather quarrelsome character? (Very far from the Nigel Bruce edition) This updated version of the Hound twists the traditions of previous work to gain more drama to cover the lack of budget which pervades every update of films today. One need only compare this film with previous attempts or compare the Old Moby Dick with the recent debacle. In support of this version I will say that the actor playing Sir Henry Baskerville gave new vitality to the role and is perhaps the best performance to date. But against it finds Stapleton is really the Scarlet Pimpernel. Or shall I say the Scarlet Pimpernel was hired to play Stapleton but ended up revealing that he is really the Scarlet Pimpernel? There is no recount of the Baskerville legend in the traditions of previous films, you won't see the dramatic "Hell-fire Club" that was in the Hammer edition from 1959. No, we have humanized Holmes & Watson down to just two guys renting the same apartment receiving a doctor's call over his codified responses to an coroner's inquest. Also you might note the strong resemblence of Inspector Lestrade to an aging Lawrence Olivier (was this an intentional joke?) All in all it is time to stop updating the classics and place the classics on DVD. Let's face it, they just don't have the money anymore to do what should be done. I am giving this a higher rating than others due to effort in writing and some aspects of the work that are memorable but old Doyle deserved better.
Rating:
Summary: Sir Arthur would approve
Review: Having seen several other versions of this classic mystery, I was excited to hear that there was to be yet another version filmed by a British production company. I was not disappointed. The casting, script, and above all atmosphere creates a movie which truly stands out. This Sherlock Holmes (played by Richard Roxburgh) is missing his trademark deerstalker hat and pipe, but that does not distract from his wonderful performance. The choice of casting for Watson is certainly different from any of the Watsons which have come before, but the script makes clear that the relationship between the doctor and detective is as strong as ever. The storyline itself stays true to the original book, but there were some liberties taken (as is usually the case with literary adaptations). A notable feature involves the screenwriter's choice to portray Holmes as a forensic scientist as well as a detective. If there is to be another film made of this story, I would like to see it top this one. On all counts, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is a truly noteworthy production. Just goes to show you CAN teach an old dog new tricks =).
Rating: 
Summary: Vile Baskerhound Tosh
Review: Yes - very difficult to revisit such a well-known story - but best advised not to try. Why? Roxburgh - plank. Hart - juvenile with weird head and lounge lizard tash. Here in the UK the supporting cast are all better known than the leads - thus, you don't know who you're supposed to be watching. Much "Oh look, it's whats'ername..." slows matters to a crawl. Excisions and additions - exiguous. Depiction of cocaine usage in toilet stall - presumably derived from hilarity-filled production lunches? Dialogue not bad; moorland photogenically wet, much like entire production. Avoid.
Rating:
Summary: Roxburgh Shines as Holmes
Review: This film is another wonder from the halls of Masterpiece Theatre. Brilliantly cast, it captures all of the wonderful aspects of the novel. Richard Roxburgh is particularly engaging as Sherlock Holmes. As the legendary detective he creates a cunning deeply sensual figure with a hint of eccentricity. His every movements evoke the illustrious haste sprung from of the bearing of intelligence, and his expressive bodily divulges reveal his sophisticated corporeal development. Indeed the only flaw in his character is that he is not shown more often in the story; this aspect is one of many things that makes the Hound of the Baskervilles a distinctive Sherlock Holmes story. The only outcast among the great performances is that of Dr. Watson, played by Ian Hart. He is portrayed as a small obnoxious discontenting person, far from his character in the novel. He moves about like a leech, and his physical appearance contemns all that he appends to.
The film remains on the pulse of the novel until the conclusion. Some changes to this point in the story surpass that which was written, while others distort it rather gratuitously, and while some aspects of the plot are more easily absorbed by those who have read the story, a characteristic common to the features of Masterpiece Theatre, this film is perfectly shot and exquisitely acted. The Hound of the Baskervilles is also unique to the writings in relation to Sherlock Holmes because it is undoubtedly a story about scenery. These places are living entities in the film, shaping and moving the lives of men. The black moor smokes the screen of reality compromising the players in this tale, and weighing always heavily in their minds. In the novel it is written in every sentence, painting methodically the setting of events, but, quite adequately, the film's exotic backdrop heeds no ambiguous introduction.
Rating: 
Summary: A somewhat distorted and watered down version
Review: The actors are first rate and the choice of location is very good, however, this version of the "Hound of the Baskervilles" portrays our hero and his companion in a way that was not originally intended. We see Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson coming out of the bathroom together with a towel wrapped around each waist. Watsons' facial expression seems to imply some sort of guilty pleasure had just taken place. Later we see Sherlock Holmes injecting himself with some sort of drug. His drug usage is sharply out of context with the original story. There is another Sherlock Holmes story known as the "Seven percent solution" which in fact involved drug usage, but this story is not suppose to be that way. To cross over from one story, and put it into another story, causes some damage to the original story. When Sherlock Holmes walks into a room, he is suppose to have a presence, unfortunately, this actor was made up to look very plain. It is hard to distinguish between the key actors and the rest of the cast. Doctor Watson and Lestrade seem to be very much watered down from their original bigger than life characters, by the way they are dressed, the way they carry themselves, and the way others react to there presence. The Hound was replaced with an animation of a dog, and this really looks bad, very much like a cartoon. There is no mention of what makes this dog so scary. In the original story we are told how the dog had been treated in order to make it wild, and also how the animal was made to take on some sort of mystical quality as a result of a luminous mixture that was applied to it making it glow in the dark. A lot of important details were left out of this film.
Rating:
Summary: UNBELIEVABLY BAD!!!
Review: This horrible version of perhaps the best Holmes tale is almost unfathomably bad. The short version of this review is: Avoid at all cost! THEN go see the Jeremy Brett version, which is THE definitive Hound! The only favorable quality of this version is that the cinematography isn't too bad and there are some nice atmospheric shots. But the casting/acting/story... hideous. Holmes and Watson are mis-cast to begin with. Neither Hart or Roxburgh can pull off Watson/Holmes to save their lives. It's obvious that not only did neither of them study Conan Doyle's work carefully, they are completely incapable of delivering a line and not having it be DOA. The acting is just BAD BAD BAD! (the directing too) Dialog falls completely flat almost always. Especially in scenes where there should be something there! For instance... the discovery of Holmes' hideout on the moor... Hart/Roxburgh stand there and delivery their lines like they're high school drama students reading the script for the first time! They're perfectly still, have no sense of timing, and have nothing behind the lines at all, and Watson barely acts surprised when Holmes shows up. It's almost unwatchable! This seems to be the dominant mode for the entire film. Furthermore... Roxburgh reads his lines in such a bland way he's almost parroting them. We're supposed to be convinced this guy is thinking?? I'm not completely against another version on Hound being made... but this supposed 'update' is pointless. Beyond the terrible acting the butchering of the script and the stupid (and oft discussed by other reviewers) use of cocaine during a case is pathetic. (For a GOOD story about Holmes' drug use see Brett in the disturbing "Devil's Foot".) Bottom line again: See the Brett version, the best. Or really, any other version besides this one.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly Engaging, if Loosely Based on the Book
Review: While choosing to reinvent, as opposed to reiterate, elements of previous "Hound" adaptations and the novel upon which they are based, this spritely television version of the familiar story maintains the essence of Conan Doyle's works while giving them a badly needed boost of cool. Here, Holmes is less the twitchy, sunken-eyed manic-depressive of the Jeremy Brett era, but more the confident Victorian adventurer (though not as suave or wonderfully controlled as in the Rathbone era). And while Richard Roxburgh may ruffle a few feathers as Holmes--he is a bit too fair-haired and frat boy for the part--he also brings a sense of joy to Holmes that hasn't been seen in a while. The plot is loosely based on the novel, in that a ghostly hound appears to be the engine to fulfill a deadly curse on the Baskerville family. Several liberties, though, are taken with the general story, including making Watson, as played by Ian Hart, a harder-edged character than we've seen before and presenting Holmes' infamous drug use as a bourgoise form of recreation rather than a tonic for intellectual stagnation. Still, David Attwood's fluid direction and a nice musical score push this production above the standard humdrum television fare--especially the tepid stuff generally produced in the U.S.
| 
