What a load of rubbish this film is. I don't know why it was called "The Hound of the Baskervilles" as it bore little resemblance to the well-known story of that name, nor why the main characters were named Holmes and Watson because they could just as easily have been called Jones and Bloggs and be done with it - they had nothing in common with the well-developed written characters of Holmes and Watson at all. As for the storyline: dull, dull, dull. Instead of the brooding gothic horror we might reasonably expect, we are subjected to a barrage of flashy sensationalised melodrama. Yet here's the most unbelievable bit - read this and weep: given the opportunity to cast Richard E. Grant as potentially the most electrifying Sherlock Holmes in decades, our bumbling Watson of a casting director elects to cast him in the role of the villain, thus relegating the characterisation of Holmes to the usual mediocrity we have sadly come to expect. Not Richard Roxburgh's fault, I am sure he did his best in dire circumstances, but he does not have the physical characteristics or personality to play Sherlock Holmes - few people do, and Richard E. Grant is possibly one of them. The opportunity was there and they totally blew it. Why, oh why, oh why don't producers of Sherlock Holmes films do their research, i.e. read all the books and gain a true perception of those two incredibly well developed and documented characters, Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. And if they don't want to do that, why do they even bother? In short, this film sucks.
Review of The Hound of the Baskervilles
