|
Rating:  -
I've watched numerous versions of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" on DVD lately and I can honestly say that this version is the worst! If you are trying to decide what version to buy or just to watch, here are my favorites: 1. The Jeremy Brett 1984 film version; 2. the Basil Rathbone 1939 film version; 3. and the Peter Cushing 1959 Hammer film version. All are excellent.
Now back to this turkey. I think very few people connected with this version even read the original novel. The casting is horrible. Holmes is played by a sleepwalking Richard Roxburgh who looks like he would be better suited wearing a German uniform in a World War II movie than trying to play Holmes in British tweed.
And Ian Hart gets my award for being one of the most mis-cast actors to play Dr. Watson. It's hard to look at this guy and think " battle-hardened, military doctor who becomes the boswell of an anti-social, but brilliant consulting detective."
One of the worst scenes is near the end when Watson and Holmes are posing next to the strung up dead hound like a couple of deep sea fishermen who have caught a giant marlin. It is contrary to the Holmes character to be photographed in this manner. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would have been laughable. which sums up most of this film.
Rating:  -
the movie was good. i have already seen it but just wanted one for my library.
Rating:  -
I watch every permutation there is of any of the Sherlock Holmes series. None of the Watsons ever seemed the sort of person that a brilliant mind like Holmes would give the time of day to. This Watson- Ian Hart- is smart, active, morally outraged and rescues Holmes in the end, despite having been shot himself. If I were Homes, THIS is who I'd want watching my back.
Rating: -
This is a story about a Canadian, Sir Henry Baskerville, who inherits a valuable and huge estate on Dartmoor, a dreary and forbidding environment. A family curse, (manifested by an incredibly huge, vicious, and horrific hound), has apparently caused his ancestors' demise and it looks as if Sir Henry is similarly doomed.
The characters who surround Sir Henry at his ancestral home are a nefarious lot and it's near impossible to decide who is behind which of the many mysterious goings-on around Baskerville Hall. A sub-plot is that an escaped murderous lunatic has escaped from a nearby prison and is running amuk in the neighborhood. In the end, the buck stops with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to prevent Sir Henry's death.
To attempt to compare this adaptation of Doyle's Magnum opus to the previous releases would be a futile endeavor indeed. While all the other "Hound" versions fall into the mystery genre, this one clearly fits into that of "suspense".
Here, we have a serious, non-traditional look at "The Hound of the Baskervilles," perhaps more true to Doyle's tale (in its approach and rendering) than all of the others. However, if you are one of those rabid Sherlock Holmes movie fans who has viewed, re-viewed, and savored the numerous other renditions, you are hereby advised that this film might possibly not be your cup of tea, perhaps due to pre-conceived notions of what the film's general ambiance and casting should be. I can best describe it by saying that this is how a writer-director might have completed the film if they had simply read the story (having never read any other Doyle works), and having never previously seen any other Sherlock Holmes films.
Don't get me wrong, this is a superb movie but it's best to first clear your mind of any prior stereotypes which you've developed about Sherlock Holmes. Both the casting and the filmscore also contribute to this actuality.
Some observations: if you like films with rain, ("It was a dark and rainy night...") then you'll be really wild about this one. My second-favorite "now-British" actor, (Richard Burton still holds my No. 1 spot), Richard E. Grant plays "Stapleton," carrying off this unique role with unparalleled excellence. He's actually Swiss but you'd never know it by seeing him in his traditional roles. I first saw him in "Gosford Park," (2001) the finest tongue-in-cheek British mystery ever produced,...
Gosford Park
...where he played "George," the hubristic and surreptitious sub-butler.
The scenes, sets, and cinematography in this film are just terrific. The original music, by Rob Lane, is subtle, appropriate, and very dark, which of course adds to the movie's considerable appeal to suspense fans. I particularly enjoyed the séance scene which comes to an abrupt end, and which will help to generate your white knuckles.
"The Hound of the Baskervilles" (2002) is a BBC production, shot in letterbox format, and runs for 100 minutes. The 5.1 Surround Sound is great (love that thunder!) and there is a "making of" facet to the DVD. There are also interviews with the cast and the crew.
Beyond all those comments, all I can say is that I hope you enjoy viewing this fine film as much as I did.
Rating:  -
There is much to admire about this adaptation of Hound of the Baskervilles. As great as Jeremy Brett was, and he was the greatest Homes ever IMO, his version of The Hound was rather dull. Kudos to this production for trying to bump up the excitement a notch.
As many have said, The Hound is far from Doyle's best Holmes story, and it has been done to death. This version tried to add some excitement that has been lost through the years. The most effective way they accomplished this was with the scariest, most atmospheric Devonshire ever. The constant wind and rain made the moors appear cold unpleasant and dangerous. I also admired the Baker street set, both interior and exterior. I also liked the red herrings in the persons of Barrymore and Dr Mortimer. They have not looked this suspicious since the Rathbone version.
I liked Roxburgh as Holmes. He did not have a lot to do, as Holmes is not in the story all that much, but he seemed cold and analytical and had a proper Victorian stiffness. Sir Henry, the Barrymores, Dr Mortimer and the Stapletons were all well cast as well.
What I did not like: 1.) the young and "unusually passionate" Watson. There is a reason Ian Hart's Watson's passion is "unusual". That is because it is misplaced. Holmes and Watson were properly reserved Victorian men. Watson had served in Afghanistan and had been wounded, and he is a doctor, so he should have been more "stiff upper lip" IMO. I cannot blame his passion in the climax in which something horrific happens that was not in the book. The director and writer may have seen Holmes and Watson as "a couple", but that does not mean that Doyle did. 2.) Holmes' cocaine use. Yes, we all know that Doyle referred to Holmes using cocaine. However, he only did this when he had no cases, and thus, no exercise for his mind. Cocaine apparently provided a similar stimulation to working on a case. In this movie, he starts shooting up just after starting the case, which makes no sense at all. 3.) The lack of the walking stick scene at the beginning. The best way to start a Holmes story is with Holmes demonstrating some deductive reasoning. The scene in which he deduces much from Dr Mortimer's stick should have been included and they could have done without the Turkish bath scene. 4.) the denouement was too long and protracted. The movie moved along quite well until Holmes reappeared, and then it sort of ground to a halt. 5.) The Hound. I found the CGI hound to be a bit silly. Not because it didn't look "real" enough (and it did not). ---SPOILER ALERT---It was silly because they tried too hard to make the Hound look unreal. IMO, the only version that really has gotten the dog more or less right is the Basil Rathbone version. Sure the hound of the legend is described as a "great black blazing eyed beast...larger than any hound mortal eye looked upon". But the hound that attacks Sir Henry is just a dog. There is no "ghost" breed of dog or "hound from hell" dog. The dog would simply have to be a big dog like a Great Dane or a Bull Mastiff. He was supposed to be coated with phosphorus to give it an unreal glow, but would still have been a real dog.
I also did not like the false assertions by the filmmakers during the "making of" featurette. They said Holmes only smoked cigarettes, and never wore a deerstalker, and that these were stage props that somehow found their way into people's perception of Sherlock. But in the stories Holmes smokes all manner of tobacco products, mainly pipes. Maybe in The Hound he only smoked cigarettes, but they did not say that. And, Sidney Paget has Holmes in deerstalker and hooded coat (no cape) in some stories (but not The Hound), so it was not merely actor William Gilette who came up with those trappings. These guys should know when they make such statements that the viewers may know a thing or two themselves.
So, I give it a `3'. It was very "in your face" for the first two thirds. It could have been the best ever if they hadn't gotten too cute with the story. The basic story by Doyle, filmed in such an atmospheric manner would have worked just fine. It's still many miles ahead of the ludicrous Matt Frewer efforts.
Television Show
Collectibles
Movie Searches
|
|
|
Search for posters,
art prints, photos, collectables, merchandise, toys, t-shirts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TV Guide
Program listings, celebrity profiles, industry
gossip, movie reviews, puzzle.
More
Entertainment
& TV Magazines
This site is
Hosted
by Bluehost
Read
my Bluehost Review
Most Popular TV collectibles
|
|
Home
Articles
Images
Forum
Search
Shopping
TV Trivia
Watch TV
Wallpaper
