Steineded How sad is this?

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Leofwine_draca Being a big, big fan of Sherlock Holmes, both in his literary and cinematic adventures, I was delighted to hear of the BBC's new adaptation of one of Conan Doyle's most popular stories (the author now being in vogue again after last year's THE LOST WORLD). But why, why does the Holmes story always have to be THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES? Why not one involving that creepy pygmy or the dozens of other horrors that Conan Doyle created for Holmes to do battle with? A cursory investigation reveals over a dozen adaptations of HOUND over the years and the story really has been done to death by now; I'm hoping this is the last we'll ever see but I fear this will not be the case. The reason the BBC made this is obvious; it means they get to utilise some CGI effects left over from WALKING WITH BEASTS to animate the giant black dog. The result is passable but hardly impressive, and it makes you wonder why they bothered when the beast is on screen for no more than a minute.The general elements of the story are present and correct, and there is some great authentic filming on the moors to give it a really atmospheric touch. The use of shadows and faint lighting, combined with an evocative score, really do highlight the spookiness and atmosphere of the original tale. The film is also pretty shocking in places, opening with a close-up of an autopsy corpse and including some mild sequences of gore and violence.Richard Roxburgh looks studious and intelligent as Holmes and gives it his all; his performance can't be faulted. Similarly, there are uniformly good turns from Ian Hart as the dependable Watson, Richard E. Grant as the slick, sinister Stapleford and British character actors John Nettles and Liza Tarbuck in minor roles. My only complaint is with the minor revisionist changes to the story; we see Holmes taking opium (since Johnny Depp made it fashionable again in FROM HELL), smoking cigarettes and the like. But gone are the pipe and deerstalker hat of the original stories. I saw someone call this "getting rid of the clichés", but Holmes' appearance is an integral part of the storyline and character and removing elements of such amounts to heresy. Otherwise, this is a great drama from the BBC, fast-paced and entirely watchable.

prodosh_bhattacharya As I said in my comment on the Claud Rains LOST WORLD, scriptwriters think they can write better stories than the original author did, and how! Then they end up botching the effort. Richard Roxborough will rank in my estimate as the second worst Sherlock Holmes I've seen, the cake being taken by whoever played him in the B & W SHERLOCK HOLMES where the master sleuth duly falls in love and gets his girl in the end.I am told that the rationalization of the hound as belonging to the wronged woman actually has 'Conanical' sanction. May be. But what an utterly incompetent Holmes! Thanks to his planning, Sir Henry is almost mauled to death by the hound, and Holmes himself nearly drowns in the quicksand (Alas, Watson saves him!) The only redeeming feature was the hound, which was at least slightly scary, which is more than I can say of the creatures in the 1939 and 1959 films, and in the two TV versions I've seen, including the Jeremy Brett one.The script writer belongs down there in his 'cleverness' with Michael Dibdin, author of THE LAST SHERLOCK HOLMES STORY which argues that Holmes's cocaine addiction turned him into Jack the Ripper.

nicolas caesar This is perhaps the 28 Days Later/Trainspotting version of the novel showing Holmes and Watson as almost psychotics, shooting heroine, nearly breaking necks with their canes. Richard Grant's scene stealing is challenged by the leads and altogether mix well for great entertainment. Far different from the Hammar version. I was impressed by the direction, acting, story, dialog but not the 'hound'. It was a sort of puppet then bad cgi, but it didn't ruin it for me. It may not match the novel and I can only assume it was to throw some curve balls. Watch it, be your own judge. I saw it as a different take on the duo. Watson isn't the bumbled Oliver Hardy he is in most adaptations and Holmes is ravenous.

alibi63 Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, are my favorite movies, books, old radio programs and TV shows.Basil Rathbone, (1892- 1967), made a film version of The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1939. Jeremy Brett,(1933-1995), played the title charter on TV for 10 years, and now Richard Roxburgh,(1962), from Australia, are the best and most believable Sherlock Holmes.This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002) is my most favorite. I long for Richard Roxburgh as Holmes and Ian Hart as Watson to make another Sherlock Holmes film together.The production values were excellent. Costumes, makeup, set decorations all excellent. Maybe "The Hound" it self could have been done better, but I don't think that it makes much difference.John Nettles, (Inspector Barnaby in Midsomer Murders), was perfect as Dr. Mortimer as well as Ron Cook as Barrymore the Butler. Richard E. Grant was amazing as Jack Stapleton. I never would have thought of Grant as menacing and cruel.Ian Hart shines as Dr. John Watson. Hart doesn't play Watson as a moron or stumble bum. He acts like a real doctor and an assistant to a real detective. This is a grown up version of the movie. Not G-rated.If you like mysteries, detectives, period films, and horror than this film is for you.Richard Roxburgh plays Holmes as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote him.