The Hound of the Baskervilles | Richard Roxburgh, Ian Hart | The white-knuckle version of "The...

The Hound of the Baskervilles | Richard Roxburgh, Ian Hart | Nothing is carved in stone

DVDs:

The Hound of the B...

	The Hound of the Baskervilles Richard Roxburgh, Ian Hart BBC Warner, 2003 average customer review:based on 63 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

In this energetic and bold adaptation Conan Doyle's legendary characters are portrayed with a pace and vigor that capture the spirit of the original story. Sir Charles of Baskerville lies dead on the moors of his family estate. The look of abject fear on his face and the presence of animal footprints around his corpse suggest the impossible; that the ghost of a fearsome hound long feared by the Baskerville family is responsible for his death. As the new heir Sir Henry Baskerville takes up residence at the estate legendary detective Sherlock Holmes and his trusted associate Dr. Watson arrive to investigate the mystery.Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: DRAMA UPC: 794051173126

for more information click here

The white-knuckle version of "The Hound"

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.

for more information click here

Nothing is carved in stone

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.

for more information click here

Almost a Great Adaptation

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.

for more information click here