Don't know how I managed to miss this over the years. It's a BBC production and it's pretty good, if it does take some liberties with the original story.
Roxborough as Holmes is not the sharp detective we've become familiar with. His acting is more naturalistic than most. His perception is as keen as ever but he doesn't speak in the clipped tones of, say, Peter Cushing or Basil Rathbone. His moves and speech are slower and more deliberate, recalling Wontner, but without giving the impression that he is an actor in a movie about Sherlock Holmes. He's the first Holmes who doesn't have dark hair and isn't taller than just about everyone else. It comes out okay.
Ian Hart has a critical role to play as Watson, since he occupies much of the central part of the film, and he's a little humorless and huffy. The original Watson was sensitive at times but quickly got over it. Here, the relationship is almost one of animus.
Henry Baskerville is short, young, and shy and hasn't much to do. Richard Grant, as the villainous Stapleton, succeeds in suggesting a barely masked evil. He's really good. He has a face that could go either way. And as his wife/sister, Neve MacIntosh projects the impression that she really is beautiful (dark hair, blue eyes, geometric nose) and recedent enough to enthrall Baskerville while still being dominated by the murderer. It's easy to see why she would become the apple of Baskerville's eye. Sorry about that. ("Apple"/"MacIntosh".)
Of course, in a well-worn story like this -- I believe it may have been the first of Conan-Doyle's stories to be filmed, and certainly must be the most often re-filmed -- the hound counts for a lot. So how does this hound come off? Well, I was scared by the computer-generated thing. The thundering gallop of its paws as it races relentlessly across the moor reminds one of the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow. It's ugly, and it has the biggest head in the business, but it might better have been limited to a few quick glimpses. The lengthier shots of it, just before it is put down by a fusillade, reveal it for what it is.
The alterations from the original aren't really a problem. So what if it's Christmas? But switching some of the lines around -- giving Stapleton dialog that belongs to someone else -- violates the character in minor ways. It's a little irritating if you're expecting fidelity to the print version.
Overall, a success. The story itself is so full of mystery and impending horror that it's hard to see how it could be botched up if any effort at all were put into it.
Roxborough as Holmes is not the sharp detective we've become familiar with. His acting is more naturalistic than most. His perception is as keen as ever but he doesn't speak in the clipped tones of, say, Peter Cushing or Basil Rathbone. His moves and speech are slower and more deliberate, recalling Wontner, but without giving the impression that he is an actor in a movie about Sherlock Holmes. He's the first Holmes who doesn't have dark hair and isn't taller than just about everyone else. It comes out okay.
Ian Hart has a critical role to play as Watson, since he occupies much of the central part of the film, and he's a little humorless and huffy. The original Watson was sensitive at times but quickly got over it. Here, the relationship is almost one of animus.
Henry Baskerville is short, young, and shy and hasn't much to do. Richard Grant, as the villainous Stapleton, succeeds in suggesting a barely masked evil. He's really good. He has a face that could go either way. And as his wife/sister, Neve MacIntosh projects the impression that she really is beautiful (dark hair, blue eyes, geometric nose) and recedent enough to enthrall Baskerville while still being dominated by the murderer. It's easy to see why she would become the apple of Baskerville's eye. Sorry about that. ("Apple"/"MacIntosh".)
Of course, in a well-worn story like this -- I believe it may have been the first of Conan-Doyle's stories to be filmed, and certainly must be the most often re-filmed -- the hound counts for a lot. So how does this hound come off? Well, I was scared by the computer-generated thing. The thundering gallop of its paws as it races relentlessly across the moor reminds one of the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow. It's ugly, and it has the biggest head in the business, but it might better have been limited to a few quick glimpses. The lengthier shots of it, just before it is put down by a fusillade, reveal it for what it is.
The alterations from the original aren't really a problem. So what if it's Christmas? But switching some of the lines around -- giving Stapleton dialog that belongs to someone else -- violates the character in minor ways. It's a little irritating if you're expecting fidelity to the print version.
Overall, a success. The story itself is so full of mystery and impending horror that it's hard to see how it could be botched up if any effort at all were put into it.