Pretty Good

Memorable, crazy movie

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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 production is first rate on many levels. The adaptation of the story is really superb, with many clever choices that work to condense and focus the narrative. The writers could, however, have done a better job in demonstrating Holmes applying his deductive powers to the clues presented. And the depiction of Holmes using cocaine while investigating a case is both totally contrary to the original stories and a jarring and distracting note that does absolutely nothing to further the story.The CGI "hound" is actually pretty awful. They would have done better with a real dog, altered as Stapleton is said to have altered him in the story.Other than that, the production values are quite excellent. And Ian Hart is one of the best Watsons ever to grace the screen, small or large. John Nettles' Dr. Mortimer is also excellent, and Richard Grant is one of the best Stapletons ever. The rest of the smaller parts are also well done.However, Richard Roxburgh delivers only what I would call a workmanlike rendition of Sherlock Holmes that is never fully convincing. The problem is that he never quite inhabits the role, especially in terms of Holmes' intense energy; he is simply too laid back. It also doesn't help that he bears no physical resemblance to the canonical Holmes. Actually, Richard Grant would have been a better choice to portray Holmes.Nevertheless, this production most definitely rewards the viewer with many moments to appreciate.

This is perhaps the 28 Days Later/Trainspotting version of the novel showing Holmes and Watson as almost psychotics, shooting heroine, nearly breaking necks with their canes. Richard Grant's scene stealing is challenged by the leads and altogether mix well for great entertainment. Far different from the Hammar version. I was impressed by the direction, acting, story, dialog but not the 'hound'. It was a sort of puppet then bad cgi, but it didn't ruin it for me. It may not match the novel and I can only assume it was to throw some curve balls. Watch it, be your own judge. I saw it as a different take on the duo. Watson isn't the bumbled Oliver Hardy he is in most adaptations and Holmes is ravenous.

Film students, gather around.One of the best things in films to study is how different chapters of a franchise change as different artists become involved. Batman, Alien, even goobers like Halloween. Just as interesting is to compare different approaches to films that respect their material. Film versions of Hamlet for instance. There's a terrific example with "Eat Drink Man Woman" and a new carbon copy "Tortilla Soup."Different editions of Holmes are illustrative because they really are different, radically so. And the "Hounds" seem to denote the greatest swings.This is probably the least attentive to the written story that I know. An important pair of characters is omitted, greatly changing the mystery. The wonder about the supernatural is toned down. They added a séance, but took away the soul of the thing which was an overwhelming evidence of the supernatural untangled as the intertwined logic of three murderers.(In the original story, the beast was an ordinary large dog with florescent paint. Here, the beast really is something a bit alien.)So what started as a grand battle between logic and superstition, which had grand deceptions and counterdeceptions confounded by accident, which had a master, THE master involved.Alas, the master here is actually secondary to Watson — who pulls HIM out of the muck. Its a complete turnaround from the Rathbone Holmes who pulled his comic Watson from identical muck.The overall effect is bland. There's no moody atmosphere, no champion, no deduction, no logic. There's no lust as in the original. One wonders why anyone would watch this at all except to fill time. Unless, unless you are trying to discover why film works and what discovered narrative is all about.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.