The Hound of the Baskervilles
The Hound of the Baskervilles
| 26 December 2002 (USA)
The Hound of the Baskervilles Trailers

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are called in to unravel a mysterious curse that has plagued the Baskerville family for generations. When Sir Charles Baskerville is found dead, his heir, Sir Henry, begs Holmes to save him from the terrifying supernatural hound that has brought fear and death to his household.

Reviews
Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!
AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.
Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense
Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible
Paul Evans I fondly remember this adaptation, and haven't seen it for years, so I wondered how it would hold up since it was made back in 2002.I hate to say it, but I feel like I'm still waiting for the defining version of this great story, I can't say I'm blown away by any version, this is another good interpretation, and ranks just behind the somewhat disappointing version featuring the legendary Jeremy Brett, and further behind Rathbone's, arguably the best telling of this story to this date.I love the way the story is told, it's a gothic, almost hammer production, full of shocks and scares, it had a very chilling, sinister feel, which is very much like the book. A strong supporting cast, with fine performances from Liza Tarbuck and Ian Hart, plus a standout performance from Richard E Grant.Unfortunately I really didn't care for Roxburgh in the role, he's a very good actor, but was just totally wrong for the role, lacking the charisma that the likes of Richard E Grant has by the bucket load. The less said about the dog, the better, it looked like a zombie dinosaur.It had it's good points, but two of the main elements, notably Sherlock and the dog, let it down.
JoeB131 I thought this film was enjoyable enough.It's different than many other Holmes stories in that Holmes himself is absent about half the way, and Dr. Watson has to work thing out.This retelling is unique in that it shows the strains in the Holmes/Watson relationship. Holmes is happy to let Watson take a lot of the abuse and use him to flush out suspects. In this version, Watson doesn't take kindly to being manipulated and rightfully so.It was made on the cheap and the costumes and settings are quite good. I don't think it stands up to the 1959 Hammer version with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.The hound. Well, I guess they couldn't help themselves, but the Hound is a CGI creation that just isn't that scary. In any monster movie (and yes, this is a monster movie) you ultimately get to the reveal of the monster, and if it doesn't work, things kind of fall apart.Hammer did very well with a dog with a rubber mask, these guys had all the benefits of CGI goodness and didn't do as well.
agni0504 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.
freedomFrog In this new adaptation of Conan Doyle classic book, Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh, "Moulin Rouge") and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart, "Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone") investigate the mysterious death of sir Charles Baskerville, whose body was found in the moor surrounding his antique manor."The hound of Baskerville" is probably the most well-known Sherlock Holmes adventure and as such as been adapted many times (IMDB references no less then 19 versions). Yet, this fine BBC production proves that there is still something new to say about this story and ranks as one of the best adaptation.First, it got the story right. Despite the presence of Sherlock Holmes and the rational ending, "the hound of the Baskerville" is more a Gothic horror tale then a police procedural. And this is how the story is approached in this movie. The dark and moody set (the mist-covered moor, the sinister Baskerville hall) creates a great Gothic atmosphere which fits well with the occasional use of gore. The plot follows quite closely the one of the book except for one or two welcome additions (the Christmas party notably, as the the movie was produced as a BBC Christmas special), which helps keep the pace of the movie fast and engaging.The other strong point of this production is the original portrayal of Holmes and Watson and of their relationship. Both are depicted as much younger and more physical then in previous version. Neither the heroic figure portrayed by Basil Rathbone nor the neurotic outsider portrayed by Jeremy Brett, Holmes is conceived as a risk-seeker. This leads him to make mistakes of judgment, his recklessness putting both his client, Watson and himself in danger, and his selfishness alienating Watson for whom he has nonetheless a deep rooted affection as witnessed by his reaction when Watson is shot or the final scene where Holmes, surprisingly, apologizes to Watson for his behavior and seems genuinely concern he might have reached a point of no return in his relationship with his friend. In this context, the controversial decision to make Holmes a genuine cocaine addict make good psychological sense. In the books, Holmes was taking drugs only when he was not on a case, to stimulate his brain. Here, on the contrary, he takes the drug at moment where he seems to be the most stimulated (at the onset of the case, and, more shockingly, in a toilet of a restaurant while Lestrade and Watson are waiting for him to arrest the murderer).Overall, although still an intellectual genius, this Holmes is less of a superhero apart from humanity, and more of a flawed human being. This is reinforced, probably unintentionally, by the fact that Richard Roxburgh lacks the charisma and the intensity previous actors (notably Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett) have brought to the role. This would have been a major flaw in any other Sherlock Holmes movie but not in this one, given its peculiar approach of the character.Portrayals of Watson have come a long way since Nigel Bruce depicted him as an idiot in the Basil Rathbone movie. Watson is now portrayed like he actually is in the Conan Doyle story, as a warmth and kind man, having many of the human qualities that Holmes lacks. But in this version, Watson, superbly played by Ian Hart and who, given his screen exposure, is actually the real main protagonist of the story, is even more competent then usual, proving himself a very efficient detective in his own right and a man of action. He is also given a much darker edge then usual. In the books, Holmes often treats Watson in a way that could be considered rude or manipulative. Interestingly, this movie takes a realistic look at how Watson would reacted to it, as he is shown as deeply hurt by Holmes' behavior. "I don't trust you", he tells him and even, during a dinner at Baskerville Hall, perhaps expressing his resentment for his friend, mocks him.This is a much strained friendship then the one usually depicted. It is also a more realistic one, given Holmes' peculiar behavior. It gives the impression to see the real Holmes-Watson relationship, before Watson watered it down for his reader (interestingly, this fits also with Holmes' cocaine addiction. Had Holmes existed, rumors of his cocaine addiction would have spread that Watson would have tried to brush away by inventing the myth the Holmes was not using the drug in a recreational way but only when a case could not provide the amount of intellectual stimulation he needed).Hence, all in all, because of his engaging plot, atmospheric settings, superb production value and of its original take on two characters of whom everything seemed to have been said (notably after their definitive interpretation given in the Jeremy Brett series), the latest version of "the hound of the Baskerville" is a must-see for any Sherlock Holmes aficionados.