ThatMOVIENut 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.

greenf74 This might not be the worst Sherlock Holmes movie in existence - "The Seven Per Cent Solution" was both gross and dull, and it has to be said that Peter Cook's allegedly comic version of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" in 1978 was truly dreadful, an abysmal abomination for which no excuses can be made, and even Cook himself said as much. Still, this travesty of the great old yarn comes pretty close. The villain of the exercise is the scriptwriter, Allen Cubitt, who seems to have contempt for the story, for its author, and, indeed, for Sherlock Holmes. This Holmes is not only utterly uncharismatic; he's arrogant, cruel, irresponsible and - the final insult - incompetent. Richard Roxburgh, badly miscast, seems bored and is boring. It must be conceded that Watson is not depicted as a buffoon, which is something - indeed Ian Hart might, with a good script, have been one of the great Watsons, alongside James Mason and Colin Blakely - and there are a few nice bits of atmosphere at the start, where the scenery of the Isle Of Man is effectively employed. But that's it. One might wonder, incidentally, if Cubitt has ever actually read the novel - he seems to have based his script more on the 1939 movie with Basil Rathbone, which is far from ideal as a version, but still lots more fun that this. The CGI hound, by the way, was probably inspired by the poster for the 1959 Hammer version. That was much more interesting, too.

mickran While the plot veers slightly from the original I think that's no bad thing as this particular Sherlock Holmes adventure has been committed to celluloid several times. The story is well told and some of the suspense is handled very well. Where this falls down horribly is in the acting or perhaps casting. Sherlock Holmes is witless and boring, charming in all the wrong ways. He doesn't impress as the genius detective but more as a kindly older uncle. Likable but harmless. However for most of the beginning of this tale Dr. Watson carries the story as Holmes is still back in London and he is the biggest digression. He is a creepy and bitter personage with an aggressive and unpleasant tone towards all around him. His portrayal would be better suited as a suspect in an Agatha Christie mystery, arrogant and aloof. This is not the good doctor at all. Lord Baskerville is played as a spoiled and arrogant Yank that that looks down on all those around him. With the other household members correctly playing suspicious and unnerving roles it really leaves you with very little to like. Watch either the Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett versions for much more enjoyable and honest interpretations of this great mystery.

tedg 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.