Sherlock Holmes - Der Hund von Baskerville

I am so glad that the makers of this adaptation did not go for the obvious option of Richard E Grant as Sherlock Holmes, instead he plays Stapleton.

Australian actor Richard Roxburgh wisely eschews the theatrics of Jeremy Brett. He gives a somewhat gritty, physical performance in this gothic induced version of Hound of the Baskervilles which is rather fast paced.

Ian Hart plays a rather waspish Dr Watson who feels used by Holmes. Watson is not entirely in Holmes confidence when Watson accompanies the new heir of the estate Sir Henry Baskerville to Dartmoor with Holmes claiming he needs to be in London.

I felt Matt Day was the weak link as Henry Baskerville, he was a bit bland. Theis drama does have enough jolts and suspense but maybe reveals the true villain of the tale rather early. It was a shame that Roxburgh was replaced for the next outing.

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

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...

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.

When Lord Baskerville is killed by a mysterious hound, the local doctor covers it up as a heart attack and lies about the wounds. However he goes to Baker Street detective Sherlock Holmes with the truth and asks for his help. Holmes dispatches Watson to protect Baskerville's relative, newly arrived from America while he attempts to uncover more.

Christmas TV schedules are full of one-off dramas usually with stars who have done well in America but have returned to keep their face about or actors who don't often do television series. This version of a classic story was one such example. As is often the case with such things, it is a good production and moves the story along at a good pace. The hound itself is best seen in shadows and quick edits as it isn't that scary but the film still manages to have a sense of urgency to it.

Roxburgh's Holmes is suitably cheerful and feels outside of the murders, like he is enjoying the mystery of the whole thing. Hart tries hard with Watson and avoids the usual trap of playing him like a fool of sorts beside Holmes. Here he is central to the story and is onscreen a lot, but Hart makes him quite sour and colourless and he emerges as quite a pale character. Support was billed as `all-star' and I suppose it is in a way. All present themselves well and people like Grant, Tarbuck (!), Nettles and Cook are interesting additions.

Overall this is a fast paced and enjoyable version of the classic tale and is easy to enjoy. Hart dominates the middle section of the film which drags it down a little due to his lifeless Watson but generally the film is well worth a watch no matter how many times you've seen it told.