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.

Robert J. Maxwell Don't know how I managed to miss this over the years. It's a BBC production and it's pretty good, if it does take some liberties with the original story.Roxborough as Holmes is not the sharp detective we've become familiar with. His acting is more naturalistic than most. His perception is as keen as ever but he doesn't speak in the clipped tones of, say, Peter Cushing or Basil Rathbone. His moves and speech are slower and more deliberate, recalling Wontner, but without giving the impression that he is an actor in a movie about Sherlock Holmes. He's the first Holmes who doesn't have dark hair and isn't taller than just about everyone else. It comes out okay.Ian Hart has a critical role to play as Watson, since he occupies much of the central part of the film, and he's a little humorless and huffy. The original Watson was sensitive at times but quickly got over it. Here, the relationship is almost one of animus.Henry Baskerville is short, young, and shy and hasn't much to do. Richard Grant, as the villainous Stapleton, succeeds in suggesting a barely masked evil. He's really good. He has a face that could go either way. And as his wife/sister, Neve MacIntosh projects the impression that she really is beautiful (dark hair, blue eyes, geometric nose) and recedent enough to enthrall Baskerville while still being dominated by the murderer. It's easy to see why she would become the apple of Baskerville's eye. Sorry about that. ("Apple"/"MacIntosh".)Of course, in a well-worn story like this -- I believe it may have been the first of Conan-Doyle's stories to be filmed, and certainly must be the most often re-filmed -- the hound counts for a lot. So how does this hound come off? Well, I was scared by the computer-generated thing. The thundering gallop of its paws as it races relentlessly across the moor reminds one of the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow. It's ugly, and it has the biggest head in the business, but it might better have been limited to a few quick glimpses. The lengthier shots of it, just before it is put down by a fusillade, reveal it for what it is.The alterations from the original aren't really a problem. So what if it's Christmas? But switching some of the lines around -- giving Stapleton dialog that belongs to someone else -- violates the character in minor ways. It's a little irritating if you're expecting fidelity to the print version.Overall, a success. The story itself is so full of mystery and impending horror that it's hard to see how it could be botched up if any effort at all were put into it.

nicolas caesar This is perhaps the 28 Days Later/Trainspotting version of the novel showing Holmes and Watson as almost psychotics, shooting heroine, nearly breaking necks with their canes. Richard Grant's scene stealing is challenged by the leads and altogether mix well for great entertainment. Far different from the Hammar version. I was impressed by the direction, acting, story, dialog but not the 'hound'. It was a sort of puppet then bad cgi, but it didn't ruin it for me. It may not match the novel and I can only assume it was to throw some curve balls. Watch it, be your own judge. I saw it as a different take on the duo. Watson isn't the bumbled Oliver Hardy he is in most adaptations and Holmes is ravenous.

Sjhm 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.