The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002)

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.

No recreation of the Sir Hugo legend, a fair haired Holmes, an acerbic Watson, a fast-and-loose adaptation, a CGI hound -- this had all the makings of a disaster, but somehow it works. First of all, Richard Roxburgh may not be a Holmes for the Ages, whatever that means, but he's bloody good. His mental energy and focus on his quarry, his wisecracking delivery, and that VOICE! Credit where credit is due, he did a fine job. Much better than Rupert Everett's whispery Holmes in the second installment. Ian Hart is fine as Watson, if a bit too much of a blustery hot head, and he more than holds up the middle portion of the film. The supporting cast is good to the point of silliness: Matt Day's Sir Henry is spot on and John Nettles' turn as Dr. Mortimer is absolutely brilliant. This character is seldom more than a third fiddle in film adaptations of THOTB, but Nettles works wonders with it. However: Richard E. Grant as Stapleton is the stuff that dreams are made of. What an incredible performance. Watch him grinning at the dinner table -- the dog is a tool; STAPLETON is the hound of the Baskervilles. That dude is a werewolf, people. Terrific, terrific acting. The hound looks ridiculous via the (non)magic of CGI and some poorly conceived changes take away, but on the whole it's a lot of (dark, dark, bloody) fun.

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 good bits - the sense of period was reasonably well captured, and it began with some genuinely frightening scenes. The minor characters of the Barrymores and the convict were also very well done.Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there, Richard Roxburgh was an uninspiring Holmes. The relationship with Watson was clearly misunderstood, and personally I found his rather surly characterisation irritating, Dr Watson is supposed to be conduit for Holmes' brilliance, so us mere mortals understand what is going on not to behave like a spoilt schoolboy made a mockery of.The character of Stapleton was too big, and far too obvious. No offence to Richard E Grant, but his manic, nervy, edgy style was completely wrong from the beginning. You are expected to believe that another claimant to the Baskerville title and lands would have hidden in plain view in such a flamboyantly obvious manner, and not have aroused people's suspicions? It then got worse. The violent end for "Miss" Stapleton was unpleasant, not in the book, and totally unnecessary. The hound was dreadful, some of the worst CGI I have ever seen. The end of the story was changed for no apparent reason, and was not an improvement. The blood and gore, merely gratuitous; Holmes floundering in the bog, and Dr Watson's sharp shooting act finally killing Stapleton totally missed the point of the true ending.