I've watched this movie a couple of times, and have been able to distill what I liked, and didn't like.
So, first. I liked Ian Hart as Watson. He played a Watson with integrity, intelligence, all the while still keeping the character sympathetic with that big heartedness Holmes outwardly seems to lack.
Secondly, I also liked the strained relationship between Holmes and Watson. Two men that have so many opposing personality traits cannot help but experience some friction at some point in their friendship. As well, I recall reading a theory that Holmes and Watson, based on the canon, may have had a falling out at some point. I saw this as perhaps being an interpretation of that. Plus, if you read A Study in Scarlet, Holmes and Watson were not fast friends. In fact, it took Watson a bit of time to not look at Holmes as some sort of freak.
Now, to what I didn't like.
I did not like the scene where Holmes shot up. Yes, he was a cocaine and morphine addict. But, he used it as a means of stimulation to escape the boredom in between cases... not to provide clarity during a case. That, really, was my only beef with that scene. If it had been an early scene where he was bored and the Baskerville case had not yet crossed his threshold, then that would have been better.
As well, I wasn't keen on Richard's accent. Sorry, I had the same bug about Matt Frewer's accent too (though his progressively got better in the Whitechapel Vampire... but I digress). I'm of the belief that if you cannot pull off the accent, use your natural one. If the acting is good, no one will really notice that Holmes' sounds like he's from Australia (or in Frewer's case, Canada). Hey, Sean Connery played a Brit (James Bond), and a Russian (Red October) using his natural Scottish burr... and it worked! Otherwise, this movie, despite deviating from the original novella, was very good. Good scenery, effects, acting, and atmosphere.
So, that's 2 for and 2 against... but since I've seen it multiple times and still enjoy it, I give it 7/10.
So, first. I liked Ian Hart as Watson. He played a Watson with integrity, intelligence, all the while still keeping the character sympathetic with that big heartedness Holmes outwardly seems to lack.
Secondly, I also liked the strained relationship between Holmes and Watson. Two men that have so many opposing personality traits cannot help but experience some friction at some point in their friendship. As well, I recall reading a theory that Holmes and Watson, based on the canon, may have had a falling out at some point. I saw this as perhaps being an interpretation of that. Plus, if you read A Study in Scarlet, Holmes and Watson were not fast friends. In fact, it took Watson a bit of time to not look at Holmes as some sort of freak.
Now, to what I didn't like.
I did not like the scene where Holmes shot up. Yes, he was a cocaine and morphine addict. But, he used it as a means of stimulation to escape the boredom in between cases... not to provide clarity during a case. That, really, was my only beef with that scene. If it had been an early scene where he was bored and the Baskerville case had not yet crossed his threshold, then that would have been better.
As well, I wasn't keen on Richard's accent. Sorry, I had the same bug about Matt Frewer's accent too (though his progressively got better in the Whitechapel Vampire... but I digress). I'm of the belief that if you cannot pull off the accent, use your natural one. If the acting is good, no one will really notice that Holmes' sounds like he's from Australia (or in Frewer's case, Canada). Hey, Sean Connery played a Brit (James Bond), and a Russian (Red October) using his natural Scottish burr... and it worked! Otherwise, this movie, despite deviating from the original novella, was very good. Good scenery, effects, acting, and atmosphere.
So, that's 2 for and 2 against... but since I've seen it multiple times and still enjoy it, I give it 7/10.