Customer Reviews

The Hound of the Baskervilles

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

This is a wonderful story and production...originally. However, the BBC Video (company) version I purchased which is 100 minutes in length had been edited so much that there were entire scenes missing right from the begining! I know because I taped the original when it aired on Masterpiece Theatre.
Buyer beware: This is not the full length version of the otherwise excellent program.

This is one of the best adaptations of the famous Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes book. It does take numerous liberties with the text but it's a handsomely mounted production featuring an excellent cast. Ian Hart is great as a more lively than usual Watson. Richard Roxburgh wouldn't have been my first choice as Holmes (co-star Richard E.Grant would have been my pick), but he does a fine job. The direction, costumes, lighting, special effects and excellent location work combine to make for a great looking production.

The DVD itself is well worth purchasing. The widescreen transfer and audio are excellent, and the various interviews and 'making of' feature are informative.

I mark this down one star because of the scriptwriter choosing to include Holmes' drug use. It doesn't add anything to the story and I assume that it was only added to be controversial. Holmes did not use drugs during a case...the character only succumbed to the needle to relieve his boredom between cases, and I don't recall his drug use being part of the original novel. At least we get to see Watson's disgust with Holmes' habit, but it doesn't excuse including it in this adaptation.

After Jeremy Brett, any other Sherlock Holmes is likely to be considered a pale copy. In this case, there is nothing in this production that was not done far better in the Brett version.

In contrast to Brett's wonderful quirkiness, Richard Roxburgh is curiously colorless. Watson is similarly undistinguished and also suffers from looking far too young to have been through what Watson had by the time he met Holmes and began their famous relationship.

Besides the weakness of the main characters, the production suffers from the obvious implication that the people who made it were woefully ignorant of the source work. The dialogue is far too modern (as when Holmes says "I could MURDER a bottle of Montrachet," or Watson explains that "Parties are not Holmes's thing.") Such dialogue is straight out of the 1990s, not the 1890s.

Anyone who reads Doyle's original stories will know that Holmes and Watson were in a sense soulmates. They shared a friendship (more than that, really; a nonsexual devotion that was perhaps unique to men of the Victorian Age) that this production misses entirely; in fact, Watson at one point declares that he does not trust Holmes. Such a feeling would have made the famous Holmes-Watson relationship impossible.

In this production, Holmes has been turned into a hopeless cocaine addict. Anyone who has read the original stories knows that Holmes would never have used cocaine during a case; he was in fact known to fast during a case, because he did not want the requirements of digestion to hamper his mental efforts. He would have found the idea of shooting up during an investigation repugnant. Rather, the [chemical substance] was his escape from the boredom he experienced between cases.

In the advertisements for the production, much was made of the computer-generated hound. Unfortunately, the beast suffers from LOOKING like a computer animation. Aside from that, the animal is simply too much -- too large, too evil-looking. If the explanation for the hound had been supernatural, its appearance would have been very appropriate. But it is entirely wrong for a NATURAL creature.

In trying to impart an air of dreariness and gloom to the moors of Dartmoor, the production probably succeeds too well -- so well that it is difficult to imagine anyone actually living there by choice. The Brett version, by comparison, has wonderful cinematography of the moors lit in the golden glow of an autumn sun; it is a place I would like to visit -- a claim I cannot make of the locale seen in this "Hound."

A few small points: In an apparent (and ill-advised) attempt to get away from some of the Holmes "cliches," this production turns him into solely a cigarette smoker. Holmes's preferred method of using tobacco was the pipe; Doyle says so, all other productions show that, and to change it is to change Holmes's character. (Speaking of which, I found the production's desire to turn Holmes into some sort of Victorian Mannix, in his handling of the cabby who transported the villain in London, utterly out of character. Holmes knew how to get information amiably, without violence; he seldom had to bash his informants about.)

Also, this production shows Baker Street unpaved. Holmes lived in London, not Dodge City; if even the slums of Whitechapel were cobblestoned, a respectable neighborhood like Baker Street certainly would have been.

If you want a first-class version of "Hound of the Baskervilles," get the Brett version. If you want a very good version, get the Rathbone version or even the Hammer Films version. All have one thing in common: They are better than this one.

Having seen several other versions of this classic mystery, I was excited to hear that there was to be yet another version filmed by a British production company. I was not disappointed. The casting, script, and above all atmosphere creates a movie which truly stands out. This Sherlock Holmes (played by Richard Roxburgh) is missing his trademark deerstalker hat and pipe, but that does not distract from his wonderful performance. The choice of casting for Watson is certainly different from any of the Watsons which have come before, but the script makes clear that the relationship between the doctor and detective is as strong as ever. The storyline itself stays true to the original book, but there were some liberties taken (as is usually the case with literary adaptations). A notable feature involves the screenwriter's choice to portray Holmes as a forensic scientist as well as a detective. If there is to be another film made of this story, I would like to see it top this one. On all counts, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is a truly noteworthy production. Just goes to show you CAN teach an old dog new tricks =).

When I heard that there is a new version of this Holmes story, and it contains Richard E Grant, I thought HE plays the great slueth himself. I thought then, well, Jeremy Brett is no longer with us, but he could be as good as him. Wrong! Not that Mr. Grant is not good. It turned out that Richard Roxburgh is Holmes, and sorry to say this, but his rendition is simply bland and colorless. He looks more like Lestrade, that famous but curiously unmemorable inspector.

But why not Richard E? Roxburgh, though a good actor, is not tall enough to be Holmes. (Richard E Grant is very tall.) But well, let's forget that now. Whoever plays Holmes must speak like Holmes. However, Holmes' delightfully ironic attitudes are gone in this version. To make matters worse, Ian Hart's Watson is too young to be convincing, and their speeches and manners are too modern. Look at one scene in which the doctor examines a dead body using a pair of white rubber gloves, as if he is a coroner in 'X-Files' and you can see that the produces didn't think much of the details. The two principal characters are so impossible that the film has no chance from the beginning.

There's more. I am not against changing the situations or story if the adaptation really needs it. However, this version went too far, especially in the second half of the book. Though the creepy atmosphere is effectively presented on the screen, the film treats some characters very clumsily. Sir Henry Baskerville, newly arriving at England, is too grim and even arrogant when his manners should be more Americanized; the butler Mr. Barrymore at the Bakerville Hall does not look mysterious enough; most incredibly, Selden the convict jumps through the window, breaking the glass like Buster Keaton. And look what happens to Miss (or Mrs) Stapleton. Oh, that's way too atrocious, and Conan Doyle would be horrified to hear the news.

Certainly this version gives a new approach to the already familiar material to us. But the point is, after all, why should we see a new version while we have already Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, and most of all, Conan Doyle? Why do we keep on watching filmed versions of the great detective? The only reason is that we want to meet Holmes, more lively and cynical one, and we need a better one than this.

I've been a long time Sherlock Holmes fan and I found this movie to be as exciting and compelling as any version of Hound of the Baskervilles ever filmed. A lot of unneccessary exposition is cut away, (thank goodness - no boring recount of Sir Hugo's life AGAIN!)leaving a lean, atmospheric, action packed story. Richard Roxburgh makes a wonderful Holmes, perfectly capturing the great detective's sharp wit, quirky humor and incisive style. Roxburgh's Holmes is much more a man of action than we've seen in a while and its a nice change to see Holmes' physical strength, as well as the mental acumen. (No slam on Jeremy Brett intended; his health excluded too much physical action, particularly near the end of the Granada series.) Ian Hart was a surprising Watson, passionate and strongly independent. Hart's Watson easily carries the part of the movie where Holmes is absent, usually a Waterloo for many 'Hound' movies. This Holmes and Watson are feisty and combative, not quite the smooth working team together we've come to expect. Their relationship seems more like a ongoing work in progress, learning to confide in and trust one another. (One hopes they'll make more movies to address this issue.) Richard Grant is a nasty Stapleton and Matt Day is one of the few to make Sir Henry Baskerville actually interesting. The production is very gothic, enhanced by some Danny Elfman-esque music. Although there are a few flaws, namely Holmes' taking cocaine on a case and Watson's rather startling, gossipy dinner conversation about his friend that makes him look disloyal. These are annoying irritations but they did not sink the movie, in my opinion.
On the whole, I found this to be one of the best versions ever.
Purists, quit carping and enjoy. Its been a very long time since we've had something new to talk about!

Why can't filmmakers trust the author (cf. Coppolla's ill-thought "Dracula")? Doyle was a craftsman; the Hound of . . . is arguably his most gripping and fascinating Holmes narrative; the Rathbone/Bruce version holds up beautifully; Hammer's Cushing/Lee outing, though lurid, is a delight; Jeremy Brett's BBC presentation is true to the core; but this latest entry is infuriating; Richard Roxburgh's Holmes verges on the sluggish (and I hold with the other discerning reviewer who cites the wrong-headedness of writing in a Holmes who used cocaine while on a case; apparently no one on the scriptwriting team read Doyle too closely), Hart's Watson testy and offputting, and black-hearted Stapleton -- here the always wonderful Richard Grant -- is far more appealing than the two leads; so much of this version just bogs -- the opening scene in Baker Street, for example, with Dr. Mortimer, a thrilling narrative in nearly every other filmed Hound, lies as flat as Roxburgh's line delivery. Don't engage this Holmes -- take a hansom cab to the real Baker Street where Rathbone, Cushing and Brett are enshrined. This is Road-show Doyle -- and he, as well as, Holmes, deserve 1st-class bookings. Always.

This adaptation of "Hound" is trying some different angles, partly in order not to be doing the same old thing over again. I understand that. First off, it's trying to put Holmes and Watson on more of an equal footing, or to give their relationship more of a give-and-take anyway. I'm sympathetic, and I liked the actor playing Watson pretty well. Secondly, it's trying to play the story as a sort of gothic horror thing -- which would be in keeping with the original novella, I guess. Okay, fine.

But this does extreme violence to the original story, the central characters, and especially the plot. As a version of The Hound of the Baskervilles, it's exceptionally brutal and lurid and faithless. It violated my sense of what Arthur Conan Doyle's characters were like, and it disregarded the original story in stupid, pointless ways that had more to do with liking the actor who played the bad guy than anything else.

You only need a few examples of all that: The villain is revealed halfway through, for one. For the second: there's a suicide here, luridly filmed and quite disturbing, that doesn't occur in the book. The same character lives in the book. And finally: the villain dies in a particularly ironic way in the book while attempting to escape to his hideout on the moor. In this version, he is shot in the face. On camera. By Watson. I kid you not.

This isn't utter trash, but it was inappropriate and irritating, and I wished I hadn't watched it. My kids were watching with me at first -- I wanted to show them how exciting a good Sherlock Holmes story could be -- and I dearly wished we hadn't started with this one. Get the Jeremy Brett version, is my recommendation, if you want a modern Holmes.

I had the misfortune to be a victim of this latest misguided HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES when I watched it on its MASTERPIECE THEATRE debut. To paraphrase one of the characters, if you value your Holmes, stay away from this perfectly dreadful HOUND. Conan Doyle's original novella - often regarded as one of the finest detective stories ever written - is a pretty straightforward affair, one which would seem relatively a breeze to adapt for the screen. Perhaps that's part of the problem then, because in every film version I've seen (save, perhaps, for the Jeremy Brett Granada one, where the hound looked as though it merely wanted a Milk-Bone and a nice tummy rub), scriptwriters can't resist the temptation to add dubious "improvements" to Sir Arthur's masterwork. This latest BBC attempt is one of the worst offenders of the criminal lot, thanks largely to the woefully unfaithful script by one Allan Cubitt. Mr. Cubitt apparently ignored the book and used the recent, thoroughly wrongheaded version of OLIVER TWIST as his template for "adapting" the Holmes tale. It's off and running to a bad start: gone is the crucial opening scene of Holmes and Watson examining Dr. Mortimer's forgotten walking stick; in it's place, Cubitt has - for some strange reason - cribbed the Turkish bath scene of an entirely different Holmes adventure. (Why? To hint at a more than intimate relationship between the good doctor and the sleuth?) It's downhill from there, folks, as Cubitt makes major changes in the story, such as tossing out important characters while creating entire chunks of business which add absolutely nothing to Sir Arthur's finely constructed plot. When he sticks to the original - such as when Holmes identifies the culprit from an ancient portrait - the film every so often feels on target. Redefining the Holmes-Watson dynamic in a mostly negative light, revealing the villain's identity halfway through the film (!), inventing a seance and Baskerville Hall Christmas party and - worst of all - having Holmes shoot up in the Gents of the Essex train station show that Mr. Cubitt will go to any depth to rip the source material to shreds. Set the hound on him!

Casting isn't much of an improvement either, as Australian Richard Roxburgh makes the second worst Holmes in recent memory - the top "honours" there go to Matt Frewer for his snide, spastic sleuth in those awful Hallmark TV films. Roxburgh's Holmes is blond, bland and utterly lacking in charisma, which is painfully obvious when he's in his scenes against wily Richard E. Grant's Stapleton. (Somehow, casting Richard E. Grant as Stapleton pretty much gives the game away right off the bat; yet with his tall, slender build, Holmesian hairline, feline grace and dusty velvet voice, Grant seems more like a natural Holmes than poor Roxburgh, betrayed by his occasional Down Under twang.) Peter Cushing R.R. sure ain't, and his polka dot tie certainly doesn't help him very much. Ian Hart fares somewhat better as a more active and intelligent than usual Watson, but he's physically wrong for the part: small, chinless and even more rat-faced that the film's Lestrade. Supporting players come off best - Aussie Matt Day makes an appealingly naive Canadian Sir Henry Baskerville; Ron Cook is a nicely mysterious Barrymore; lovely Neve McIntosh is a Beryl Stapleton worth sinking into the Grimpen Mire for, and Grant pretty much makes his scenes endurable when nothing else does. However, a fat Selden (Paul Kynman)? Let's just say that Stevie Wonder could see the difference between Sir Henry and the escaped convicted murderer Selden in this production, which makes Holmes look like a total idiot at a crucial plot point.

And the hound itself? The CGI work does indeed create the most fearsome canine - far more terrifying than the hapless german shepherd pressed into duty in the even worse Frewer version. In fact, the digital hound looks like a leftover critter from WALKING WITH PREHISTORIC BEASTS - not an abused modern day pooch. (And in a "whaddya know", the CGI effects animator did work on the WALKING special; time to vary things a bit with a Poppin' Fresh gig, eh?) And where was the animal's ghostly glow? Another glaring omission on the filmmakers' part. Perhaps they were all too busy shooting up with Holmes in that Essex men's room...

No denying, then, that another opportunity to adapt a definitive version of this hoary Holmesian chestnut went straight to the dogs. Granted, the 1959 Hammer version and the 1982 TV flick with Ian Richardson aren't much more faithful, but they each have an excellent Holmes - Cushing remains my favourite, as he restored Holmes from the cliché which Rathbone made him, and Richardson had an airiness which still seems refreshing compared to Brett's ham-upon-ham approach. Both of those versions are preferable to Auntie Beeb's latest atrocity. If you do catch this one, be prepared to do a lot of howling yourself - in outrage.

There is much to admire about this adaptation of Hound of the Baskervilles. As great as Jeremy Brett was, and he was the greatest Homes ever IMO, his version of The Hound was rather dull. Kudos to this production for trying to bump up the excitement a notch.

As many have said, The Hound is far from Doyle's best Holmes story, and it has been done to death. This version tried to add some excitement that has been lost through the years. The most effective way they accomplished this was with the scariest, most atmospheric Devonshire ever. The constant wind and rain made the moors appear cold unpleasant and dangerous. I also admired the Baker street set, both interior and exterior. I also liked the red herrings in the persons of Barrymore and Dr Mortimer. They have not looked this suspicious since the Rathbone version.

I liked Roxburgh as Holmes. He did not have a lot to do, as Holmes is not in the story all that much, but he seemed cold and analytical and had a proper Victorian stiffness. Sir Henry, the Barrymores, Dr Mortimer and the Stapletons were all well cast as well.

What I did not like: 1.) the young and "unusually passionate" Watson. There is a reason Ian Hart's Watson's passion is "unusual". That is because it is misplaced. Holmes and Watson were properly reserved Victorian men. Watson had served in Afghanistan and had been wounded, and he is a doctor, so he should have been more "stiff upper lip" IMO. I cannot blame his passion in the climax in which something horrific happens that was not in the book. The director and writer may have seen Holmes and Watson as "a couple", but that does not mean that Doyle did. 2.) Holmes' cocaine use. Yes, we all know that Doyle referred to Holmes using cocaine. However, he only did this when he had no cases, and thus, no exercise for his mind. Cocaine apparently provided a similar stimulation to working on a case. In this movie, he starts shooting up just after starting the case, which makes no sense at all. 3.) The lack of the walking stick scene at the beginning. The best way to start a Holmes story is with Holmes demonstrating some deductive reasoning. The scene in which he deduces much from Dr Mortimer's stick should have been included and they could have done without the Turkish bath scene. 4.) the denouement was too long and protracted. The movie moved along quite well until Holmes reappeared, and then it sort of ground to a halt. 5.) The Hound. I found the CGI hound to be a bit silly. Not because it didn't look "real" enough (and it did not). ---SPOILER ALERT---It was silly because they tried too hard to make the Hound look unreal. IMO, the only version that really has gotten the dog more or less right is the Basil Rathbone version. Sure the hound of the legend is described as a "great black blazing eyed beast...larger than any hound mortal eye looked upon". But the hound that attacks Sir Henry is just a dog. There is no "ghost" breed of dog or "hound from hell" dog. The dog would simply have to be a big dog like a Great Dane or a Bull Mastiff. He was supposed to be coated with phosphorus to give it an unreal glow, but would still have been a real dog.

I also did not like the false assertions by the filmmakers during the "making of" featurette. They said Holmes only smoked cigarettes, and never wore a deerstalker, and that these were stage props that somehow found their way into people's perception of Sherlock. But in the stories Holmes smokes all manner of tobacco products, mainly pipes. Maybe in The Hound he only smoked cigarettes, but they did not say that. And, Sidney Paget has Holmes in deerstalker and hooded coat (no cape) in some stories (but not The Hound), so it was not merely actor William Gilette who came up with those trappings. These guys should know when they make such statements that the viewers may know a thing or two themselves.

So, I give it a `3'. It was very "in your face" for the first two thirds. It could have been the best ever if they hadn't gotten too cute with the story. The basic story by Doyle, filmed in such an atmospheric manner would have worked just fine. It's still many miles ahead of the ludicrous Matt Frewer efforts.