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.
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.