Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is one of the, perhaps even THE, most famous Sherlock Holmes stories and is the most adapted. For good reason, it is such a thrilling and scary story and contains a tantalising mystery.
This 2002 adaptation could have been better and is not in the same league as those of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing, all wonderful and with vastly superior interpretations of Holmes. While one of the lesser adaptations of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', it's not the worst. It is better than the Matt Frewer film and although it needs to be re-watched remember the Peter Cook film being an abomination (from personal experience, while there have been a fair share of changes most of my re-watches have seen my opinions unchanged).
Certainly there are plus points. On the most part, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' looks great. There is a real creepiness and authenticity to the settings and production design and the costumes show a careful eye for detail. It's beautifully photographed. The music is suitably eerie.
Writing intrigues and entertains, while there are some genuinely creepy and suspenseful moments. Especially the opening and the attack on Seldon, as well as some of the build ups. It's paced in a lively fashion while still having some breathing space. Direction is competent enough at some points but low key in others.
Of the acting, the standouts are Ian Hart's loyal Watson (to me one of the best, most interesting and most faithful interpretations) and Richard E. Grant's skin crawling Stapleton (have only seen him creepier in the 'Trial and Retribution' episode he featured in). John Nettles is also splendid, and Danny Webb fares decently as Lestrade. Really liked Holmes and Watson's loyal yet strained chemistry and Watson featuring heavily in the second half which made him more interesting.
Was more conflicted though on Richard Roxburgh. Didn't mind the lack of physical resemblance, for me he did a serviceable enough job and has some charisma but he is also a bit bland and pales in comparison to very stiff competition, particularly Brett and Rathbone. Holmes could have been written somewhat better too, much has been said about the over-emphasised and out of character drug use (he did them, but not how depicted here) and his deductions seemed too convenient and telegraphed somehow.
Matt Day to me was a dull Sir Henry and Neve McKintosh, while lovely, seemed too modern for the period and the character is gratuitously treated here.
Also felt there were dull stretches, with the party and séance sequences feeling like padding. The hound effects are really quite dreadful, looking like something out of the 50s or earlier except worse looking, the culprit is obvious far too early (even for those familiar with the story or knows it inside out) and the ending is confused, rushed and anti-climactic, as well as missing the point of the ending, story and title.
In summary, not bad but could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox
This 2002 adaptation could have been better and is not in the same league as those of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing, all wonderful and with vastly superior interpretations of Holmes. While one of the lesser adaptations of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', it's not the worst. It is better than the Matt Frewer film and although it needs to be re-watched remember the Peter Cook film being an abomination (from personal experience, while there have been a fair share of changes most of my re-watches have seen my opinions unchanged).
Certainly there are plus points. On the most part, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' looks great. There is a real creepiness and authenticity to the settings and production design and the costumes show a careful eye for detail. It's beautifully photographed. The music is suitably eerie.
Writing intrigues and entertains, while there are some genuinely creepy and suspenseful moments. Especially the opening and the attack on Seldon, as well as some of the build ups. It's paced in a lively fashion while still having some breathing space. Direction is competent enough at some points but low key in others.
Of the acting, the standouts are Ian Hart's loyal Watson (to me one of the best, most interesting and most faithful interpretations) and Richard E. Grant's skin crawling Stapleton (have only seen him creepier in the 'Trial and Retribution' episode he featured in). John Nettles is also splendid, and Danny Webb fares decently as Lestrade. Really liked Holmes and Watson's loyal yet strained chemistry and Watson featuring heavily in the second half which made him more interesting.
Was more conflicted though on Richard Roxburgh. Didn't mind the lack of physical resemblance, for me he did a serviceable enough job and has some charisma but he is also a bit bland and pales in comparison to very stiff competition, particularly Brett and Rathbone. Holmes could have been written somewhat better too, much has been said about the over-emphasised and out of character drug use (he did them, but not how depicted here) and his deductions seemed too convenient and telegraphed somehow.
Matt Day to me was a dull Sir Henry and Neve McKintosh, while lovely, seemed too modern for the period and the character is gratuitously treated here.
Also felt there were dull stretches, with the party and séance sequences feeling like padding. The hound effects are really quite dreadful, looking like something out of the 50s or earlier except worse looking, the culprit is obvious far too early (even for those familiar with the story or knows it inside out) and the ending is confused, rushed and anti-climactic, as well as missing the point of the ending, story and title.
In summary, not bad but could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox