The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002)

Fresh and Exciting

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxborough) and his aide Watson (Ian Hart) are engaged to investigate the bizarre death of Sir Charles Baskerville, the latest victim of his family's horrible 'curse'. Watching over the last in the family's line, Sir Henry (Matt Day), Holmes ventures onto the forbidding Dartmoor moors to investigate the demon hound.Before Cumberbatch and Moffat, the BBC tried to reinvigorate Holmes with this 2002 TV film, amping up the action, atmosphere and body horror of Conan Doyle's most famous novel, and with mixed results. Right out of the gate, the film's first problem lies in its lead: Roxborough, while not terrible, doesn't make for a terribly distinct Holmes. He doesn't exude intelligence, mania, authority or a sense of control like many other interpretations have, and as a result does deflate the proceedings, never fully commanding the scenes the way a Holmes actor ought to.The second issue is a confused mission statement: the screenplay mostly condenses Doyle's story well, and straddles the line of the supernatural very well, if not enhances the whole contrast further with a well handled a séance sequence, but adds a few things. Turning more low key elements like an interrogation of a cabbie into little action scenes, as well as changing bits of structure and characterization from the various cast, would likely annoy purists, but then throwing things in like Holmes' drug addiction (which honestly is never properly explained in the context of this film) really only makes sense to those already familiar with the books, so just who is the film made for? And the third is the actual Hound which, while in terms of design is actually fairly effective, a nightmarish hyena-dog-tiger hybrid, the CG even in '02 leaves much to be desired, and comes off as a tad rubbery and not meshed well with the environment.All these issues do knock down what is otherwise a fairly decent mystery thriller: the cast are good with Richard E. Grant chewing scenery as the devilish Stapleton, and director David Attwood does a good job at creating an uneasy and haunting atmosphere on the moors, keeping the Hound as a background menace, building up to it slowly while it howls in the fog. However, such details do not deter the facts of the case: this Hound never rises higher than being, purely and undeniably, elementary.

Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, are my favorite movies, books, old radio programs and TV shows.Basil Rathbone, (1892- 1967), made a film version of The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1939. Jeremy Brett,(1933-1995), played the title charter on TV for 10 years, and now Richard Roxburgh,(1962), from Australia, are the best and most believable Sherlock Holmes.This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002) is my most favorite. I long for Richard Roxburgh as Holmes and Ian Hart as Watson to make another Sherlock Holmes film together.The production values were excellent. Costumes, makeup, set decorations all excellent. Maybe "The Hound" it self could have been done better, but I don't think that it makes much difference.John Nettles, (Inspector Barnaby in Midsomer Murders), was perfect as Dr. Mortimer as well as Ron Cook as Barrymore the Butler. Richard E. Grant was amazing as Jack Stapleton. I never would have thought of Grant as menacing and cruel.Ian Hart shines as Dr. John Watson. Hart doesn't play Watson as a moron or stumble bum. He acts like a real doctor and an assistant to a real detective. This is a grown up version of the movie. Not G-rated.If you like mysteries, detectives, period films, and horror than this film is for you.Richard Roxburgh plays Holmes as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote him.

This was a bad dramatisation of a classic. Although the cast had potential I couldn't help but feel that this dramatisation hammed up Sherlock Holmes horribly and failed to evoke the atmosphere and norms of Edwardian England. It was yet another remake that failed to provide a new insight into the story. I particularly disliked the characterisation of the relationship between Holmes and Watson - it seemed that Holmes held Watson permanently in contempt which is not something that I felt when reading the stories. Even Richard E. Grant was disappointing and seemed to be over acting - I suspect that was due to poor direction. For me the best dramatisation of this story is the Jeremy Brett version which combines wonderful acting, with a real sense of history and atmosphere. In fact for me the 'Jeremy Brett' series is the most authentic and atmospheric dramatisation of the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes to date. If you want 'ham' look at the Basil Rathbone version which is wonderful in a different way and don't waste your time on this.