Film students, gather around.
One of the best things in films to study is how different chapters of a franchise change as different artists become involved. Batman, Alien, even goobers like Halloween. Just as interesting is to compare different approaches to films that respect their material. Film versions of Hamlet for instance. There's a terrific example with "Eat Drink Man Woman" and a new carbon copy "Tortilla Soup."
Different editions of Holmes are illustrative because they really are different, radically so. And the "Hounds" seem to denote the greatest swings.
This is probably the least attentive to the written story that I know. An important pair of characters is omitted, greatly changing the mystery. The wonder about the supernatural is toned down. They added a séance, but took away the soul of the thing which was an overwhelming evidence of the supernatural untangled as the intertwined logic of three murderers.
(In the original story, the beast was an ordinary large dog with florescent paint. Here, the beast really is something a bit alien.)
So what started as a grand battle between logic and superstition, which had grand deceptions and counterdeceptions confounded by accident, which had a master, THE master involved.
Alas, the master here is actually secondary to Watson who pulls HIM out of the muck. Its a complete turnaround from the Rathbone Holmes who pulled his comic Watson from identical muck.
The overall effect is bland. There's no moody atmosphere, no champion, no deduction, no logic. There's no lust as in the original.
One wonders why anyone would watch this at all except to fill time. Unless, unless you are trying to discover why film works and what discovered narrative is all about.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
