Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Prismark10 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

walsh-campbell 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.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU It's a long rime after the first written version was ever published today and Richard Roxburgh is trying the impossible and he has to succeed. Be another Sherlock Holmes in the horror stricken and horror striking Hound of the Baskervilles. We all know the story and the end, so it would be no use and useless to tell it all over again. It has not changed as for the perverted history of these noble families who fought on the good side at the time of the Civil War but find themselves today on the wrong side, thought that does not matter any more. And their perverted Cromwellism is transported into a weirdo story about a violent ancestor who killed his wife out of we don't exactly know what but who got killed in the end by her faithful hound. The dog, man's best friend can, also be a woman's best friend and her male opponent worst enemy. Transport that at the end of the 19th century, slightly respected in the dirt in the streets and no paving and cobble-stones, even in Baker Street, and at the same time modernized for our fragile little taste. So the poor Sherlock Holmes spectacularly inject his heroin in his arm, though I would have sworn it should have been cocaine. And many other little details like that. The special effects are definitely more modern and the storm and tempest really looks like a storm or tempest. The mud looks like mud and the rain seems to be wet. Then this version pushes some dramatic elements a little bit farther, like the end of the poor sister-wife of the bastard son. The beast looks like something you could meet in Saint James Park, a cross between a hound and a boar, another great success of our world famous cloning and genetically manipulating laboratories. The bastard's death though is nearly a good retribution. I preferred the original version, slower, more deserved, more dignified by the amount of time it takes to go through the slow process of choking to death. But well, times are a-changing and as for thrilling horror we definitely do a better special effects job than in the 60s of last century. Enjoy that new version if you come across it.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID