|
Rating:  -
Sherlock Holmes,afterall,is a fiction,and not a real person,and the so-called"canon"of his adventures represent a collection of fictions and not an historical record of any reality...Thus,when a new take on one of these fictions comes along I am hard-pressed to understand why it is so necessary to some that all of the plot devices of the original be maintained and that nothing original be added..This version of "The hound of the Baskervilles" rearranges much of the original story,adds a number of original touches not included in the Doyle work,and comes off as a refreshing break from the same old ground trod repeatedly in the past...Being a fan of the late Jeremy Brent,I can be sympathetic towards those who say that Richard Roxburgh does not measure up,but Brent was all about portraying the classic Holmes as written by Doyle,while this new version calls for a portrayal that departs from the Doyle model,and in this Roxburgh succeeds well...While the basic outline of the story has been maintained,the new Holmes is darker,less secure in his abilities(thus his departure from smoking three pipes in order to think out a problem,and instead his use of the 7% solution),and therefore more human than the Doyle creation,which in itself seems a much-needed improvement..Watson,whom many regard as being in fact Doyle himself,is young,which was what Doyle was when writing most of these original stories,so the fact that he is portrayed here as a young man seems much more true-to-form than the many old Watsons that have come before..Some may quibble with the ending,but,afterall,this film uses the original story only as a launching pad for something new and different and,therefore,one cannot really expect the ending to be the same old same old.
Rating:  -
"Hounds" captured the mood of the period, the strong dominant male attitude of the day, with an accent on more than just the Holmes character.
John Nettles (Midsomer Murders, Inspector Barnaby) as Dr. Mortimer brought depth to the film as an intelligent man of science, caring, intense, troubled and persistent in his quest for answers.
Thanks to all for your production efforts. Worth the remake.
Rating: -
I am a Richard Roxburgh fan. Mostly because he is so darn cool, and even in horrible movies you still kind of like him, darn it. He's like an Aussie Tim Allen, zing.
I did not notice his twangy accent, and believe me I looked, because everybody complained about it. I liked watson very much, mostly because he seemed exactly like the one in Doyle's books. The Watson from the Brett movies seemed a little rugged to me, although I liked how he and Holmes had insightful conversations. Here, Watson mostly throws hissy-fits like an angry spouse or something, but I thought it was funny. When Holmes makes him angry, he quickly tries to defuse him with compliments (much like a guy trying to calm his angry girlfriend) but of course it doesn't work. They really are like a couple, no getting around that. But that's what makes it interesting. Holmes would probably be an infuriating friend to have, I think.
Roxburgh may be a little too good-looking, what with his perfect teeth and all, for Holmes, but he downplays it ok. I liked the small touches, like sniffing a perfume-scented letter from a woman (quickly filing that part of his brain away a milisecond later, like a machine), or laughing in a creepy way like in the books.
The main issue is that this story has been done and done. They don't help matters by making the villain totally transparent. In the seance scene, the camera lingers for one frame in a totally bogus way that gives away everything. There are a couple orginial takes on the material, mostly involving Richard E. Grant, who rules as usual. He was perfectly cast and while I agree it's weird that he's taller than Holmes, he himself would not make a good Holmes in my opinion. But I concede he'd be better then *shudder* Rupert Everett.
Overall, I bought it because I like Roxburgh, but as a piece by itself it's a novelty. I still prefer it to the other film adaptations, because the ending to this version derails from the plot of the book in a ludicrous but interesting way.
Rating:  -
This version has the feel of what I thought it should have. Whenever I read holmes stories I think of fog/excitement and oddly enough the darker side of humanity.
I've read almost all the sherlock holmes stories and when people complain about sherlock's drug use in this verion it bothers me because it was mentioned in the various stories that he used morphine and cocaine. Even if it wasn't in "the hound of the baskervilles", it was in doyle's portrayal and therefore accurate to the character.
It's even been mentioned in another film adaption, so it's not like this is the first one to play with the "OMG HOLMES IS A DRUGGIE" thing.
If this scene bothers you pretend it's insulin or something but don't say it's horrible to mention his habit. (and it wasn't really a habit so much as a stress/needing excitement evening out) thing.
So don't give people who haven't read the books the wrong impression.
Obviously there were some liberties, but the drug use WASN'T one of them.
Rating: -
This movie changed way too many things in the book that it didn't need to to conserve the length of the movie and it wasn't scary enough. Also, it isn't very well filmed because as my siser and my mom and I were watching it, in the corner of the screen we saw a guy wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt who was obviously part of the crew. One more thing: I kind of expected Holmes to be older.
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
