The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002 TV Movie) User Reviews

Passable... with some tweak-age could be Wonderful

[ProfMo · 7/10 · 6 May 2006]

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.

A Television Masterpiece

[se7en45 · 8/10 · 26 December 2002]

The BBC, here in England, have just broadcast the latest version of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes story "The Hound of the Baskervilles". I had my reservations about this latest stab at the old chestnut, I mean there's so MANY versions out there (including the legendary Hammer version with Peter Cushing, Jeremy Brett in his definitive series for television and who can forget Basil Rathbone's rendition?). However, despite my misgivings, I sat down to watch this new addition and I after watching it I am still reeling from the excitement it generated.

The opening image of a dead body on a post-mortem table was spine chilling and shocking. It immediately set a dark and unsettling tone for the rest of this bleak adaptation. The cold colour scheme was absolutely amazing in creating fear and suspense. Mystery lapped at the corners and the fog whispered unseen danger. The cinematography was very stylish and very much in keeping with Doyle's original novel. There's constant rain, mud, mist, strange sounds, almost all colour is drained from the harsh landscape of the forbidding moor. The mood of hopelessness begins to seep into the mind which leaves behind a dour and disturbing emotion.

The performance by Richard Roxburgh (from "Moulin Rouge" and soon to be seen as Dracula in the forthcoming "Van Helsing") has grit and edge which I found refreshing. Gone are the melodramatic cliches of the deerstalker and a pipe (props craftily employed by Rathbone to enhance his character) and in comes the reality of Holmes sitting on a toilet as he injects cocaine into his pock-marked forearm. Later we see him flicking the ash from his cigar into a champagne glass, these and many other habits are shown which indicate how untidy Holmes is in his private life but when it comes to solving crimes he is like a committed bloodhound.

Dr Watson, played by Ian Hart, is another fabulous performer. Gone is the bumbling idiot of old and in comes a tough ex-soldier who has a sharp mind and a very focussed attitude. He even displays genuine anger towards Holmes when he learns that he has been used to engineer a plan devised by Holmes. Although he respects Holmes, Dr Watson also feels mistrust when he finds Holmes abusing their friendship. This again is very much in keeping with the spirit of the books. It is a myth to think of Dr Watson as a simple buffoon who just writes down the exploits of his superior friend, Sherlock Holmes.

All the other actors were superb in their roles. There was a perfect harmony in the acting and their readings of the roles were spot on in every department.

The music, cinematography, locations, production, direction, special effects, etc were wonderful and masterly. This gothic film could easily have been screened in cinemas, it has enough excitement and terror for any multiplex. Once again, Television leads the way forward in great quality drama.

I sincerely hope that the sparkling chemistry displayed between Roxburgh and Hart will bring future installments in the adventures of Holmes and Watson on TV. There is huge potential and I think it would be a real shame if the BBC stopped making further adaptations with this fantastic team.

I am now eagerly awaiting the DVD release so that I can enjoy this lovely gem once more. Go on, curl up in front of the fire, dim the lights, turn up the volume, sip your hot chocolate and be stunned by an evening in front of the TV. Let your imagination be transported into the wild and misty moor. Up ahead, beware the hound that prowls in the shadows of the dripping moon...

Good, untrue but good

[stroppygob · 7/10 · 7 January 2005]

Watched this last night on ABC Australia.

As a keen Sherlockian I was, and you may find this hard to believe, glad of the changes made to the story. Another attempt to retell the original tale would be unnecessary, and pointless. The hound itself was a big let down, a real dog should have been used, with a little additional retouching by special effects to give it more a "horrorific" appearance.

The settings were where? Does anyone know? I cannot believe it was filmed on Dartmoor, as I know the moors well.

The cast was good, but I would have preferred Richard E Grant to have played Holmes, surely a role he is long overdue to play? Watson was brilliant, and rather more true to the books than others who have played him.

The handling of the Selden part of the story was superb.

The drug use of Holmes was falsely and unnecessarily used, every one knows Holmes never used coke when involved in a case! I'll get this on DVD without doubt.

Fast paced and enjoyable despite a few misgivings

[bob the moo · 30 December 2002]

When Lord Baskerville is killed by a mysterious hound, the local doctor covers it up as a heart attack and lies about the wounds. However he goes to Baker Street detective Sherlock Holmes with the truth and asks for his help. Holmes dispatches Watson to protect Baskerville's relative, newly arrived from America while he attempts to uncover more.

Christmas TV schedules are full of one-off dramas usually with stars who have done well in America but have returned to keep their face about or actors who don't often do television series. This version of a classic story was one such example. As is often the case with such things, it is a good production and moves the story along at a good pace. The hound itself is best seen in shadows and quick edits as it isn't that scary but the film still manages to have a sense of urgency to it.

Roxburgh's Holmes is suitably cheerful and feels outside of the murders, like he is enjoying the mystery of the whole thing. Hart tries hard with Watson and avoids the usual trap of playing him like a fool of sorts beside Holmes. Here he is central to the story and is onscreen a lot, but Hart makes him quite sour and colourless and he emerges as quite a pale character. Support was billed as `all-star' and I suppose it is in a way. All present themselves well and people like Grant, Tarbuck (!), Nettles and Cook are interesting additions.

Overall this is a fast paced and enjoyable version of the classic tale and is easy to enjoy. Hart dominates the middle section of the film which drags it down a little due to his lifeless Watson but generally the film is well worth a watch no matter how many times you've seen it told.

Conflicted feelings on this Hound

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 17 April 2018]

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

Classic Holmes mystery.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 25 December 2005]

The Hound of the Baskervilles is set in Victorian England & starts at a coroners inquest as various witnesses give evidence on the death of Sir Charles Baskerville (Peter Roberts), the final conclusion is that Sir Charles died of heart failure & thus natural causes, case closed. Closed that is except for Sir Charles best friend Dr. James Mortimer (John Nettles) who visits London to try & enlist the help of Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh) & his assistant Dr. Watson (Ian Hart). Mortimer explains to Holmes that he feels Sir Charles death was no accident & is connected to an ancient legend about a hound from hell that terrorises the Baskerville family, he also says that the last heir to the Baskerville estate & money, Sir Henry Baskerville (Matt Day), is arriving from Canada to claim his inheritance & that he fears for his safety. No sooner has Sir Henry arrived he receives a threatening letter & is shadowed by someone. Holmes accepts the case & sends Watson to accompany Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall. Once there the mystery deepens with strange acting servants Mr. & Mrs. Barrymore (Ron Cook & Liza Tarbuck), the escaped murderer Selden (Paul Kynman) loose on the moors & the constant blood chilling howling that echos across the moors at night...

Directed by David Attwood this was produced for British Christmas TV back in '02 by the BBC, The Hound of the Baskervilles must surely be one of the most adapted novels ever as this is the sixth one I've seen this year! The script by Allan Cubitt is based on the novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, which I have not read so I cannot compare the two, retains all the elements that have made this timeless story such a success over the decades various filmmakers have adapted it. The missing boot, the legend, the painting, Holmes disappearing for a large chunk of it, the Grimpen mire & the escaped murderer on the moors although the opening introduction to Dr. Mortimer with the cane providing clues to his identity was strangely omitted. All the necessary character's & red herrings are here as well but there were things about this version of the novel that I wasn't sure about. I didn't like Holmes that much in this, call me old fashioned but I want to see him solve the mystery through brainpower & be a role model everyone aspires to, I don't want to see him beat someone & almost strangle them to obtain information, I don't want to see him burst into sporadic bouts of manic laughter, I don't want to see him being rude or mean & I definitely don't want to see him shooting up with cocaine in a public toilet. There is no happy ending for anyone either as it features wife beating which ends up with another unexpected victim. The relationship between Holmes & Watson is also slightly different, they don't seem quite as friendly towards each other as usual. Because this was made as a one off Christmas special someone obviously thought it would be a good idea to set it during the festive period & on Christmas Day which seems like an afterthought & totally unnecessary.

Director Attwood has made one of the finest looking Hound of the Baskervilles adaptations, shot in England by the BBC who know how to make great period drama (I should know I've sat through enough of 'em!), trust me this looks marvellous throughout & the CGI hound looks fabulous & very ferocious, the best one I've seen. It's also a much darker told tale than usual with an unfamiliar Holmes, an autopsy scene, a bitten off ear, some blood & gore plus a shot of a beaten woman hanging from a ceiling. I'm just not sure I like it's dark, seedy & violent undercurrent.

Technically the film has strong production values throughout as one would expect from the BBC, the only slight problem I have with it is that it was shot on video rather than film. The locations are great, the effects are good & it's very well made. The acting is strong although Roxburgh as Holmes didn't do much for me, I'd have preferred Richard E. Grant to swap roles with him. Hart as Watson plays it totally straight, no bumbling sidekick routine here. The Britsh supporting cast are great.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is an often told tale & maybe all the other versions I have seen clouds my judgement on this but there was something about it that didn't sit right with me. The way Holmes is depicted & the darker elements perhaps got in the way of what is still a brilliant murder mystery, I don't quite know. Still, it's definitely worth a watch & is something just that bit different from the adaptations I have seen thus far which, in a way, is a good thing I suppose.

Fast-paced and entirely watchable BBC adaptation

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 1 August 2016]

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 game is afoot

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 25 June 2018]

I am so glad that the makers of this adaptation did not go for the obvious option of Richard E Grant as Sherlock Holmes, instead he plays Stapleton.

Australian actor Richard Roxburgh wisely eschews the theatrics of Jeremy Brett. He gives a somewhat gritty, physical performance in this gothic induced version of Hound of the Baskervilles which is rather fast paced.

Ian Hart plays a rather waspish Dr Watson who feels used by Holmes. Watson is not entirely in Holmes confidence when Watson accompanies the new heir of the estate Sir Henry Baskerville to Dartmoor with Holmes claiming he needs to be in London.

I felt Matt Day was the weak link as Henry Baskerville, he was a bit bland. Theis drama does have enough jolts and suspense but maybe reveals the true villain of the tale rather early. It was a shame that Roxburgh was replaced for the next outing.

This was a well done version of an old favorite.

[jackandskyesmom · 10/10 · 20 January 2003]

This was a well done version of one of the most favorite of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's tales. This version showcases an excellent cast, terrific costumes, and one of the best Edwardian locations yet. Other than Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, which is the best ever, Mr. Roxburgh was a very believable detective. While Richard Roxburgh is a really good Holmes, Ian Hart is outstanding as Dr. Watson. He plays Watson as an intelligent, loyal, and very human but capable doctor. Ian Hart brought a fuller dimension to the Dr. Watson character to this Hound of the Baskervilles that many other version have not. I also liked Matt Day as Sir. Henry Baskerville. His youth helped make his character more believable than others who have played this roll. Richard E. Grant was a diabolical Stapleton and feelings I had toward him as the "bad guy" attest to his great acting ability, as I loved him as the Scarlet Pimpernel! The only disappointment was the very few moments when the computer animated 'hound' was on screen. When the hound was chasing Baskerville, it was terrifying but as the animal got close up and I could see it was turned into a computer animated composite of several animals, terror turned to unbelief! All in all it was one of the best versions so far and I enjoyed it very much. I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys not only a good detective story but somewhat of a horror story too.

Very Excellent Made for TV Adaptation

[QuisitsTrepe · 6/10 · 18 November 2002]

First off I should mention that I had never before seen an adaptation for The Hound of the Baskervilles before so I cannot compare to other films. I thought that this movie was very excellent. I saw a trailer for it today on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and I knew that I would have to stay up and watch it. I was totally not dissapointed. Richard Roxbough (Moulin Rouge!) plays Sherlock Holmes in this adaptation and he was wonderful. He had all the right moves for Sherlock and as always he acted excellently. I should also mention that for a made for TV film it appeared to have quite large production values which show throughout. The acting was great throughout and I can't remember one bad performance. I would recommend everyone to watch this film if you are looking for a good mystery.

Less 'Poirot', more 'Prime Suspect'

[paul2001sw-1 · 5/10 · 18 May 2004]

Not being familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle's books (or any other adaptations of them), I was expecting 'Hound of the Baskervilles' to be a typical Agatha Christie-style mystery. But the characters are less ridiculous than in something like 'Poirot' and Holmes' detection is really quite conventional, he gathers evidence and tracks down his man in a logical, thorough manner: the crime is also quite believable. Holmes and Watson are both men of action as well as thought: Holmes is arrogant and would even risk letting a man die to prove his theories, while Watson is decent, far from a fool, but annoyed to be patronised by his master. Regardless of whether this is true to the book, it sounds like the basis for an interesting period police procedural.

Unfortunately the whole thing falls a bit flat: although it may be filmed as a thriller, there's a curious lack of tension throughout: no-one acts as if they are really scared or shocked at any point. Even Richard E. Grant is for once (by his standards) relatively understated: there's no terror to carry the film. And there's something curiously uncinematic about the way Holmes solves this crime. He seems to know who the villain is simply by having done some prior research - very rarely do his deductions actually follow from his observations, rather his conclusions are just periodically thrown at us as fact. What also doesn't help is the strange mixture of natural outdoor, studio, and computer-generated settings: the aim is presumably to increase the impact, but it has the opposite effect, as one struggles to believe in the composite geography.

In conclusion, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' deserves some credit for rising above pantomime: but it's badly directed and dreadfully dull. A shame.

The best Holmes adaptation ever!

[mike-1730 · 10/10 · 19 May 2005]

I read some of the above comments with incredulity. What do these Holmes fanatics want? I do get rather weary of hoping that one day there will be an adaptation that remains true to the book, but that is not going to be in my lifetime. Roxburgh brings a more aggressive approach to Holmes than any other actor I have seen:Ian Hart is a very independent Watson, his own man, not in thrall to Holmes, rather more of an equal. The chemistry between them is electric,almost threatening to boil over before it finally does,when they meet on the Black Tor. Richard E Grant is a splendid villain, so evil that he kills his wife for refusing to aid his diabolical scheme. This is a twenty first century version of this remarkable story that will come to be appreciated for what it is, brilliant. The rest of the cast, especially John Nettles as Dr Mortimer, give wonderful support. I have seen this film three times in the last two years and enjoyed it more on each occasion. Forget the purists-enjoy!

A fairly good version with some mistakes

[agni0504 · 7/10 · 23 May 2009]

I must tell that when I hear the name Sherlock Holmes, Jeremy Brett appears in front of my eyes as the master detective. My opinion is that he is unsurpassable in the role.

I have seen this version of the Hound some years ago, and I was rather skeptical at the beginning.OK, there are some mistakes - for example, Holmes NEVER used cocaine to stimulate his mind while solving a case, he shoot up when he was bored. And the famous Hound became too supernatural for my taste, and they left out some parts from the original novel. But the overall impression was positive.Richard Roxburgh was a little unusual Holmes, but his performance was good. The fact that he is handsome added some kind of sexuality to the role - it worked with Jeremy Brett as well, he was very handsome too. Ian Hart was convincing as Watson, and Richard E. Grant was superb as the evil Stapleton.

The Granada version of the Hound will always have its soft spot in my heart, but I recommend this film as well.

The worst adaptation I've ever seen.

[L_Forster · 1/10 · 31 October 2003]

This is probably the worst adaptation of any Sherlock Holmes story I have ever seen. Though the setting and characters are the same, the plot doesn't even resemble the original story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. If you know anything of Doyle's works and Sherlock Holmes, you will be sorely disappointed. If you don't, you won't learn it from watching this story.

Not Holmes... necessarily.... but good

[talaxina · 10 January 2004]

As a fan of the Novel, and all of Doyle's Holmes stories I was initially put off by the casting of a blonde Aussie as Sherlock. And I still feel that the characters would have been closer to Doyle's original descriptions had Roxburgh and Richard E. Grant switched roles. But, having said that, I found this treatment of the novel highly entertaining, and a lot of fun. The differences from the novel served to seperate it from the book, and give me a good bit of TV that stands on it's own, as it's own story. Holmes in an alternate reality for those of you out there that follow Science Fiction, if you will. And Hart did a masterful job as Dr. John H. Watson. What was my most lasting impression of this movie ? That Richard Roxburgh, though not in his element as Holmes, gave his all. And the way he played Holmes made me think... maybe Roxburgh is the best candidate to take over the role of Doctor Who when the series returns in 2005...

What do you call that thing where the landowner has the right to bed the local women?

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 7/10 · 5 February 2011]

As much as I am a fan of the earlier versions of Sherlock Holmes, I am thrilled to see it done with modern actors and with modern sets.

Richard Roxburgh (Moulin Rouge!, Mission: Impossible II, Van Helsing) makes for a great Holmes, and Ian Hart (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) a great Dr. Watson. One can only hope to see more of both of them in these roles.

While we all know the story, it is not spoiled by a retelling, especially with such fine actors.

The scenery is vastly improved in this version, and the hound is very ferocious looking to boot.

Roxborough tackles Sherlock

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 9 March 2023]

Well I sure didn't recognize Richard Roxburgh as Sherlock Holmes! After seeing Rake, you realize what a wonderful actor he is.

This version is very atmospheric, though I confess I wasn't crazy about Watson and Sir Henry.

Roxburgh is very good as a more physical and less intense version of Holmes. Both Holmes and Watson were more physical than usual.

Richard E. Grant as the villain is great, especially at the end. And he has a great line to Sherlock, "I must confess I covet your skull."

Loved seeing John Nettles of "Midsomer Murders" and "Bergerac" fame as the doctor.

It's been a long time since I saw the Rathbone Hound, so I don't remember all the story specifics.

Entertaining.

Hello Governor, It's a Bloody Good Time!

[CharlestonNole · 7/10 · 27 October 2003]

First off, I have never really been a fan of Sherlock Holmes. Actually, the only time I have been exposed to Holmes was on Star Trek the Next Generation's holodeck. Yeah, I know - I need to get out more often. I have never seen or read any adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. So with that being said, this is truly a great film. Yes, I have read about the changes to the story and all that fluff, but the actors and director do a bloody good job. The story is compelling and intriguing all at the same time. The atmosphere and the mood are set appropriately dark and gloomy - which just adds the supernatural feel. Great TV film that may have been served better in a darkened theater. My score: 7/10!

Dark, well produced, just not a fan of Roxburgh's Holmes.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 28 April 2018]

I fondly remember this adaptation, and haven't seen it for years, so I wondered how it would hold up since it was made back in 2002.

I hate to say it, but I feel like I'm still waiting for the defining version of this great story, I can't say I'm blown away by any version, this is another good interpretation, and ranks just behind the somewhat disappointing version featuring the legendary Jeremy Brett, and further behind Rathbone's, arguably the best telling of this story to this date.

I love the way the story is told, it's a gothic, almost hammer production, full of shocks and scares, it had a very chilling, sinister feel, which is very much like the book. A strong supporting cast, with fine performances from Liza Tarbuck and Ian Hart, plus a standout performance from Richard E Grant.

Unfortunately I really didn't care for Roxburgh in the role, he's a very good actor, but was just totally wrong for the role, lacking the charisma that the likes of Richard E Grant has by the bucket load. The less said about the dog, the better, it looked like a zombie dinosaur.

It had it's good points, but two of the main elements, notably Sherlock and the dog, let it down.

Superb production

[simon-285 · 10/10 · 28 December 2002]

This is an excellent production and one in which Watson is played with more vigour and determination than is usually portrayed. Readers may be interested to note that some of the scenes appear to have been filmed around the locations in which Conan Doyle is thought to have set the original story (Buckfastleigh, Devon).

Refurbished Hound.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 23 December 2011]

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.

Yet another travesty of interpretation

[adie53 · 1/10 · 27 December 2002]

The Hound of the Baskervilles is one of the most gripping,brooding and atmospheric thrillers ever written. It perfectly captures the Victorian psyche incorporating as it does all the elements of gentlemanly chivalry and courage against fiendishly twisted evil and callousness. Add a dose of the supernatural set against the dark and forbidding moors of Dartmoor and the stage is set. Unfortunately this film achieves the almost impossible in capturing absolutely nothing of the original. The main characters are preposterous and bear no comparison whatever with Conan Doyle's description. I am not aware that Sherlock Holmes had a convoluted mixture of Southern Hemisphere accents and Watson reminds me of an East London spiv.The plot does not stay true to the book and the drug taking scenes are not in context and appear merely as gratuitous. There is no need for the makers to have "improved" the original story by adding scenes of their own e.g Watson being shot,Holmes falling into the mire etc. Best of all the Hound ,when eventually seen, is obviously an import from "The Lost World" looking as it does a cross between a sabre toothed tiger and a crocodile. This is poor fare and a waste of a lot of money and time. Worse it is the latest in a long line of failures to tell this story with the imagination and attention to detail it deserves. Conan Doyle has done the work ,it merely needs faithful reproduction. Sadly it appears there is no one able enough for this task.

A great Holmes adaptation!

[general-melchett · 10/10 · 10 July 2006]

I saw this Sherlock Holmes adaptation, and I found it very good. It was fast-paced, action-packed and gripping, unlike the black-and-white "Speckled Band" adaptation that I saw a few months before. It was fun, and even though it didn't stay too loyal to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original plot, it still kept thrilling with very few plot holes. There were some particularly good settings, and it really depicted the Victorian era well. Even though I didn't know any of the actors too well, I still enjoyed watching them do their individual roles, and I'm glad to say they did a good job. Scary, gory and also quite strange and well done, this BBC movie was a great watch! If only all Sherlock Holmes films could have been like this one...

Best James Watson for a long time.

[davros-10 · 7/10 · 9 January 2005]

Despite a rather remote performance from Richard Roxburgh (in comparison to say Jeremy Brett, or Basil Rathbone), I enjoyed this slightly amended/updated version of the story.

I have read the book several times, but am not a purist. I don't believe you should look at a movie as an adaptation of a book, but you must look at the movie as the entire package and enjoy it for itself. The very nature of film-making means that you must change things sometimes, especially when adapting material originally written over a century ago.

And if someone has paid for the rights to a story, then they are entitled to change it as much as they like if they think it will sell better that way. So ignore the original material and enjoy or not enjoy the film just for itself.

Having said that, I think that Ian Hart is one of the best Dr Watson's we've seen, certainly far better than the unfortunate bumbling of Nigel Bruce for instance. Dr Watson is not an idiot, but an intelligent doctor and a decorated soldier. In many Sherlock Holmes stories on the screen you can't help but say: "What would Holmes be doing with an idiot for a friend?" I think Ian Hart has played Watson on at least one other occasion, and he was also good playing Conan Doyle in "Finding Neverland", which was a nice touch.

Just watch this version of the story and enjoy it for itself.

One big flush.

[redcustard · 1/10 · 14 July 2003]

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.