Il mastino dei Baskerville

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.

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.

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

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.