Il mastino dei Baskerville

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.