Rating: 
Summary: Above all keep away from the moor.......and this movie
Review: I admit I am only an average Sherlock Holmes fan, even though I am in the process of replacing the entire Jeremy Brett Granada/PBS series on DVD. However, I watched this on Masterpiece Theatre last night, and going to sleep I was EXTREMELY grateful I had a paid day off from work today. I would not have been well enough to go in. I have never seen a such a poor relationship between Holmes and Watson, or such an UGLY hound (the 12 minute follow up tells us it was computer generated, not a real dog). Granted if you read the book, or see other tv or big screen version of this, you learn this is more than just a mystery. But to me this version was nothing more than an intense horror film. Also where was Laura Lyons version of the in this story? If your PBS or BBC station reruns it before my message is posted, IGNORE IT, don't tape it, don't by the disc. AVOID IT AS MUCH AS WATSON AND SIR HENRY WERE ADVISED TO AVOID THE MOOR!!!
Rating:
Summary: Yet Another Dog of a HOUND (Spoilers included)
Review: I had the misfortune to be a victim of this latest misguided HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES when I watched it on its MASTERPIECE THEATRE debut. To paraphrase one of the characters, if you value your Holmes, stay away from this perfectly dreadful HOUND. Conan Doyle's original novella - often regarded as one of the finest detective stories ever written - is a pretty straightforward affair, one which would seem relatively a breeze to adapt for the screen. Perhaps that's part of the problem then, because in every film version I've seen (save, perhaps, for the Jeremy Brett Granada one, where the hound looked as though it merely wanted a Milk-Bone and a nice tummy rub), scriptwriters can't resist the temptation to add dubious "improvements" to Sir Arthur's masterwork. This latest BBC attempt is one of the worst offenders of the criminal lot, thanks largely to the woefully unfaithful script by one Allan Cubitt. Mr. Cubitt apparently ignored the book and used the recent, thoroughly wrongheaded version of OLIVER TWIST as his template for "adapting" the Holmes tale. It's off and running to a bad start: gone is the crucial opening scene of Holmes and Watson examining Dr. Mortimer's forgotten walking stick; in it's place, Cubitt has - for some strange reason - cribbed the Turkish bath scene of an entirely different Holmes adventure. (Why? To hint at a more than intimate relationship between the good doctor and the sleuth?) It's downhill from there, folks, as Cubitt makes major changes in the story, such as tossing out important characters while creating entire chunks of business which add absolutely nothing to Sir Arthur's finely constructed plot. When he sticks to the original - such as when Holmes identifies the culprit from an ancient portrait - the film every so often feels on target. Redefining the Holmes-Watson dynamic in a mostly negative light, revealing the villain's identity halfway through the film (!), inventing a seance and Baskerville Hall Christmas party and - worst of all - having Holmes shoot up in the Gents of the Essex train station show that Mr. Cubitt will go to any depth to rip the source material to shreds. Set the hound on him!Casting isn't much of an improvement either, as Austalian Richard Roxburgh makes the second worst Holmes in recent memory - the top "honours" there go to Matt Frewer for his snide, spastic sleuth in those awful Hallmark TV films. Roxburgh's Holmes is blond, bland and utterly lacking in charisma, which is painfully obvious when he's in his scenes against wily Richard E. Grant's Stapleton. (Somehow, casting Richard E. Grant as Stapleton pretty much gives the game away right off the bat; yet with his tall, slender build, Holmesian hairline, feline grace and dusty velvet voice, Grant seems more like a natural Holmes than poor Roxburgh, betrayed by his occasional Down Under twang.) Peter Cushing R.R. sure ain't, and his polka dot tie certainly doesn't help him very much. Ian Hart fares somewhat better as a more active and intelligent than usual Watson, but he's physically wrong for the part: small, chinless and even more rat-faced that the film's Lestrade. Supporting players come off best - Aussie Matt Day makes an appealingly naive Canadian Sir Henry Baskerville; Ron Cook is a nicely mysterious Barrymore; lovely Neve McIntosh is a Beryl Stapleton work sinking into the Grimpen Mire for, and Grant pretty much makes his scenes endurable when nothing else does. However, a fat Selden (Paul Kynman)? Let's just say that Stevie Wonder could see the difference between Sir Henry and the escaped convicted murderer Selden in this production, which makes Holmes look like a total idiot at a crucial plot point. And the hound itself? The CGI work does indeed create the most fearsome canine - far more terrifying than the hapless german shepherd pressed into duty in the even worse Frewer version. In fact, the digital hound looks like a leftover critter from WALKING WITH PREHISTORIC BEASt - not an abused modern day pooch. (And in a "whaddya know", the CGI effects animator did work on the WALKING special; time to vary things a bit with a Poppin Fresh gig, eh?) And where was the animal's ghostly glow? Another glaring omission on the filmmakers' part. Perhaps they were all too busy shooting up with Holmes in that Essex men's room... No denying, then, that another opportunity to adapt a definitive version of this hoary Holmesian chestnut went straight to the dogs. Granted, the 1959 Hammer version and the 1982 TV flick with Ian Richardson aren't much more faithful, but they each have an excellent Holmes - Cushing remains my favourite, as he restored Holmes from the cliché which Rathbone made him, and Richardson has an airiness which still seems refreshing compared to Brett's ham-and-more-ham approach. Both of those versions are preferable to Auntie Beeb's latest atrocity. If you do catch this one, be prepared to do a lot of howling yourself - in outrage.
Rating: 
Summary: A Horror Story more than a Mystery
Review: This adaptation has the appearance of being faithful to the book, but it is not. It follows most of the events described in the original text, but where it departs from it, it departs from the spirit of the story. For example, it is not so much that the characters do not match exactly the physical descriptions in the book. That is to be expected in any adaptation. But here, Watson seems to have more sense, while Holmes seems to be a bungling detective. The alterations in Holmes's character are subtle, but in total, they convey an aura of ineptitude. In the original novel, Watson, though sometimes hurt by Holmes's secrecy, is nonetheless open in his admiration and awe of Holmes's brilliance. Here, Watson only displays his resentment and none of his trust and respect. Moreover, the camaraderie between the two is greatly diminished. The events that were altered, possibly for dramatic effect, make the story less satisfying than it was in the original. The movie leaves you disappointed with the great detective's sleuthing abilities. To its credit, however, the sound effects were great. The moor is shown in all its rugged beauty. It is mysterious and frightening, yet magnificent. The bleakness and gloom of the surroundings make the legend of the hound so much more real and horrifying. I also personally liked the fact that they shot parts of the film at 221b Baker Street itself. This adaptation could've been better if it had been more faithful to Holmes's character and to the reasons why he is considered the greatest detective of all time.
Rating: 
Summary: a different take on holmes
Review: this is a great bbc movie -- it is a refreshing take on the hound of the baskervilles. it has enough budget to do some interesting digital. if you are a big holmes fan and did not see it on pbs or bbc, you may want to rent it (note the low scores on reviews here from holmes purists). i own every holmes vhs and dvd from wontner to brett -- i think you will want to add this dvd to your collection. even if you are not a holmes fan, this is just a fun watch!!
Rating: 
Summary: A Ripping Good Yarn
Review: This Masterpiece Theatre production of arguably the most famous Sherlock Holmes tale takes several liberties with Doyle's novel, but the changes and spritely pace make this the most thrilling cinematic version so far. My library includes both the Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett versions, but I found this to be a terrific bit of filmmaking. Often, a "too faithful" film adaptation of a book produces a lifeless movie. Here, we have a very exciting work that, like the title Hound, races along with much intrigue and the clever handling of clues and red herrings. I enjoyed the under-played Holmes, the sturdy and individual Watson, a beautiful Miss Stapleton, and a very unctuous villain. If you wish to introduce someone to Doyle's famous detective, this is the film to show them. Then, let them read the book for further enjoyment (and, to them, some new surprises). I enjoyed this much more than I expected to.
Rating:
Summary: A Waste of the Baskervilles
Review: That Roxburgh is unsuited to portray Holmes is uncomfortably obvious. He adds none of Holmes's charming eccentricities, struggles to voice the part, and hardly looks it either, especially when next to Grant, who himself would've been better at it. Hart and Nettles are physically unsuited for their roles as well. Add to a poorly cast lot a script that goes too far afield from the novel. Holmes's use of cocaine is overstated here, and his relationship with Watson is made to be one of the barest tolerance, rather than the one of enduring friendship and admiration Doyle created. The scenes that didn't appear in the novel at all border on silliness, contributing nothing. I can't see this film being of any value to an avid Sherlockian. Grant's performance is its only commendable feature, earning it two stars instead of one.
Rating: 
Summary: A great BBC dramatisation
Review: I had no pre-conceptions and i am not a Sherlock Holmes fan. I watched the film simply to enjoy it. And that i did. The setting was picturesque and this was a period drama with a little more than corsets. The acting was good and I throughly enjoyed the air of suspense created. A good film to watch one late saturday night.
Rating:
Summary: Unfaithful and miscast version.
Review: This is quite the worst "Hound of the Baskervilles" I have seen. It is nothing new to deviate from the Conan-Doyle story and although this doesn't do so often, it does it in pointless and unnecessary ways. The worst feature, however, is the miscasting of Holmes, who is so wooden he hardly registers at all, and Watson who is completely alien to Conan-Doyle's creation and dominates throughout as if he was the main character.
If this is an attempt to de-construct the Holmes story you can keep it.
Rating:
Summary: Holmes fans beware!
Review: I must have watched a different film from that of some of my fellow reviewers - though if, as in one case at least, watching this film has inspired someone to read the original stories, who am I to complain? I think this is a dismal retelling of the story. Half the plot is missing, the relationship between Holmes and Watson hints at nothing of Conan Doyle's mutual respect and affection, and it is singularly disconcerting to have the hero cast so physically against type while the villain appears as the very incarnation of Holmes. There is also a ridiculous scene in which Holmes turns to cocaine in order to improve his deductive faculties, when, in the original stories, it is made quite clear that Holmes never resorts to the drung except when he is bored senseless. To add insult to injury, the locations, sets and costumes are not only at odds with those described in the book, but almost entirely inaccurate in terms of period detail. The one good thing is the CGI hound, which, for once, has something of the satanic appearance described in the book. Sadly, a dud.
Rating:
Summary: Strays from the original story
Review: This review is based on the TV presentation on the BBC in Great Britain. The acting and general production are very good, but this film does not stick to the original story. Some elements have been missed out, and others have been changed quite radically. If you have never read the book then this probably won't wory you, but if you are familiar with the story then you may find these changes not to your liking. There are also some errors with regard to the railway scenes, but I'll reveal myself to be a complete 'anorak' if I detail those, so I'll leave it as a general warning!
|
