Sherlock Holmes - Der Hund von Baskerville

As I write this there are no reviews posted yet. I assume that there will be several before too long. It's hard not to comment when a great book is adapted so poorly.

I must admit, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is not my favorite of the Conan Doyle canon, but it is quite a moody, remarkable tale. This adaptation maintains some of that mood, but little of the mark. It looks good, it is well cast (for the most part), but it takes liberties with the character of Sherlock Holmes that have always bothered me.

For instance: Holmes is portrayed shooting cocaine- AFTER the mystery was brought to his attention. First of all: at this point in his career Holmes no longer used cocaine. Secondly: Holmes only ever used cocaine when he was bored- when there was nothing to occupy his mind I, for one, am tired of dramatists making so much of Holmes drug use. Nicolas Meyer brilliantly said the last >word about it in THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION. Let it go.

In this version Holmes tracks down the cab that they saw outside in Baker Street and physically threatens the cabbie- picking him up off the ground with a cane at his throat. In THE FINAL PROBLEM Holmes is described as "the foremost champion of the law of (his) generation." That doesn't describe the Sherlock Holmes of this film.

The Barrymore's lie about the woman Barrymore is signaling to adds nothing but a lurid LACK of Victorian values.

One of my pet peeves occurs early on when Holmes calls Watson an idiot. This is a sad remnant of the Rathbone/Bruce era, when to make Holmes look smarter, Watson became a buffoon. I can't remember one moment in Doyle when Holmes berated Watson that way. Sure, he commented on Watson's lack of observation- but not his inteligence. Remember, he was a doctor!

Seldon, the Notting Hill Strangler, attacking Sir Henry was just another way to add action to a dramatic piece. Didn't like it. The seance scene and the appearance of the hound- didn't like it.

Let me say, Ian Hart as Watson was a very nice choice. He's an actor I've admired since I saw Backbeat, and I enjoyed him in the role of Watson.

I've long thought the time was right for another HOUND adaptation. I just wish it could have been done with a better script and budget- with Francis Ford Coppola directing it. Until then, the Jeremy Brett version will do nicely.

For the record, my favorite story is THE BRUCE PARTINGTON PLANS.

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...

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.