The Hound of the Baskervilles

This was a well done version of one of the most favorite of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's tales. This version showcases an excellent cast, terrific costumes, and one of the best Edwardian locations yet. Other than Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, which is the best ever, Mr. Roxburgh was a very believable detective. While Richard Roxburgh is a really good Holmes, Ian Hart is outstanding as Dr. Watson. He plays Watson as an intelligent, loyal, and very human but capable doctor. Ian Hart brought a fuller dimension to the Dr. Watson character to this Hound of the Baskervilles that many other version have not. I also liked Matt Day as Sir. Henry Baskerville. His youth helped make his character more believable than others who have played this roll. Richard E. Grant was a diabolical Stapleton and feelings I had toward him as the "bad guy" attest to his great acting ability, as I loved him as the Scarlet Pimpernel! The only disappointment was the very few moments when the computer animated 'hound' was on screen. When the hound was chasing Baskerville, it was terrifying but as the animal got close up and I could see it was turned into a computer animated composite of several animals, terror turned to unbelief! All in all it was one of the best versions so far and I enjoyed it very much. I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys not only a good detective story but somewhat of a horror story too.

Call me crazy, but when you're adapting one of the longest Sherlock Holmes stories -- in under two hours -- there's little room to go off on tangents that aren't present in the original plot, much less omit major plot development.

Comment guidelines forbid discussing plot details, which makes it impossible to discuss how egregiously the story has been warped. In brief: the wrong person ends up in quicksand, no one should be hanged, only one person should be gnawed by any kind of animal, there's no seance or pantomime, and the Hound effects are embarrassing.

This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles also has a Holmes who drugs himself during his cases, when, presumably, he would need to concentrate. Need I point out that Holmes used drugs between cases, when he was bored, not while he was working?

On the bright side, Richard Grant was excellent as Jack Stapleton. I only wish the script were equal to his performance.

The BBC, here in England, have just broadcast the latest version of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes story "The Hound of the Baskervilles". I had my reservations about this latest stab at the old chestnut, I mean there's so MANY versions out there (including the legendary Hammer version with Peter Cushing, Jeremy Brett in his definitive series for television and who can forget Basil Rathbone's rendition?). However, despite my misgivings, I sat down to watch this new addition and I after watching it I am still reeling from the excitement it generated.

The opening image of a dead body on a post-mortem table was spine chilling and shocking. It immediately set a dark and unsettling tone for the rest of this bleak adaptation. The cold colour scheme was absolutely amazing in creating fear and suspense. Mystery lapped at the corners and the fog whispered unseen danger. The cinematography was very stylish and very much in keeping with Doyle's original novel. There's constant rain, mud, mist, strange sounds, almost all colour is drained from the harsh landscape of the forbidding moor. The mood of hopelessness begins to seep into the mind which leaves behind a dour and disturbing emotion.

The performance by Richard Roxburgh (from "Moulin Rouge" and soon to be seen as Dracula in the forthcoming "Van Helsing") has grit and edge which I found refreshing. Gone are the melodramatic cliches of the deerstalker and a pipe (props craftily employed by Rathbone to enhance his character) and in comes the reality of Holmes sitting on a toilet as he injects cocaine into his pock-marked forearm. Later we see him flicking the ash from his cigar into a champagne glass, these and many other habits are shown which indicate how untidy Holmes is in his private life but when it comes to solving crimes he is like a committed bloodhound.

Dr Watson, played by Ian Hart, is another fabulous performer. Gone is the bumbling idiot of old and in comes a tough ex-soldier who has a sharp mind and a very focussed attitude. He even displays genuine anger towards Holmes when he learns that he has been used to engineer a plan devised by Holmes. Although he respects Holmes, Dr Watson also feels mistrust when he finds Holmes abusing their friendship. This again is very much in keeping with the spirit of the books. It is a myth to think of Dr Watson as a simple buffoon who just writes down the exploits of his superior friend, Sherlock Holmes.

All the other actors were superb in their roles. There was a perfect harmony in the acting and their readings of the roles were spot on in every department.

The music, cinematography, locations, production, direction, special effects, etc were wonderful and masterly. This gothic film could easily have been screened in cinemas, it has enough excitement and terror for any multiplex. Once again, Television leads the way forward in great quality drama.

I sincerely hope that the sparkling chemistry displayed between Roxburgh and Hart will bring future installments in the adventures of Holmes and Watson on TV. There is huge potential and I think it would be a real shame if the BBC stopped making further adaptations with this fantastic team.

I am now eagerly awaiting the DVD release so that I can enjoy this lovely gem once more. Go on, curl up in front of the fire, dim the lights, turn up the volume, sip your hot chocolate and be stunned by an evening in front of the TV. Let your imagination be transported into the wild and misty moor. Up ahead, beware the hound that prowls in the shadows of the dripping moon...

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is one of the, perhaps even THE, most famous Sherlock Holmes stories and is the most adapted. For good reason, it is such a thrilling and scary story and contains a tantalising mystery.

This 2002 adaptation could have been better and is not in the same league as those of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing, all wonderful and with vastly superior interpretations of Holmes. While one of the lesser adaptations of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', it's not the worst. It is better than the Matt Frewer film and although it needs to be re-watched remember the Peter Cook film being an abomination (from personal experience, while there have been a fair share of changes most of my re-watches have seen my opinions unchanged).

Certainly there are plus points. On the most part, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' looks great. There is a real creepiness and authenticity to the settings and production design and the costumes show a careful eye for detail. It's beautifully photographed. The music is suitably eerie.

Writing intrigues and entertains, while there are some genuinely creepy and suspenseful moments. Especially the opening and the attack on Seldon, as well as some of the build ups. It's paced in a lively fashion while still having some breathing space. Direction is competent enough at some points but low key in others.

Of the acting, the standouts are Ian Hart's loyal Watson (to me one of the best, most interesting and most faithful interpretations) and Richard E. Grant's skin crawling Stapleton (have only seen him creepier in the 'Trial and Retribution' episode he featured in). John Nettles is also splendid, and Danny Webb fares decently as Lestrade. Really liked Holmes and Watson's loyal yet strained chemistry and Watson featuring heavily in the second half which made him more interesting.

Was more conflicted though on Richard Roxburgh. Didn't mind the lack of physical resemblance, for me he did a serviceable enough job and has some charisma but he is also a bit bland and pales in comparison to very stiff competition, particularly Brett and Rathbone. Holmes could have been written somewhat better too, much has been said about the over-emphasised and out of character drug use (he did them, but not how depicted here) and his deductions seemed too convenient and telegraphed somehow.

Matt Day to me was a dull Sir Henry and Neve McKintosh, while lovely, seemed too modern for the period and the character is gratuitously treated here.

Also felt there were dull stretches, with the party and séance sequences feeling like padding. The hound effects are really quite dreadful, looking like something out of the 50s or earlier except worse looking, the culprit is obvious far too early (even for those familiar with the story or knows it inside out) and the ending is confused, rushed and anti-climactic, as well as missing the point of the ending, story and title.

In summary, not bad but could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I'm sorry but this was a serious disappointment. The makers seemed so desperate to make this version different that they changed or removed important characters and parts of the story. There are just too many things to list so I shall concentrate my criticism on the portrayal of Holmes and Watson.

While it is true that Watson often got annoyed with Holmes he was never so blatantly antagonistic towards him. Holmes' drug addiction was over played. Holmes only took his 7% solution when he was not on a case as form of alternative stimulus. He was not, as the film suggests, constantly indulging his addiction (and certainly not in railway station toilets).

The only two pieces of good casting were that of John Nettles as Dr Mortimer and Richard E Grant as Stapleton. I can only pray that the woefully miscast Holmes and Watson do not do any more films.

Jeremy Brett's crown as the best screen Sherlock Holmes is in no danger at all.