I am so glad that the makers of this adaptation did not go for the obvious option of Richard E Grant as Sherlock Holmes, instead he plays Stapleton.Australian actor Richard Roxburgh wisely eschews the theatrics of Jeremy Brett. He gives a somewhat gritty, physical performance in this gothic induced version of Hound of the Baskervilles which is rather fast paced.Ian Hart plays a rather waspish Dr Watson who feels used by Holmes. Watson is not entirely in Holmes confidence when Watson accompanies the new heir of the estate Sir Henry Baskerville to Dartmoor with Holmes claiming he needs to be in London.I felt Matt Day was the weak link as Henry Baskerville, he was a bit bland. Theis drama does have enough jolts and suspense but maybe reveals the true villain of the tale rather early. It was a shame that Roxburgh was replaced for the next outing.

No recreation of the Sir Hugo legend, a fair haired Holmes, an acerbic Watson, a fast-and-loose adaptation, a CGI hound -- this had all the makings of a disaster, but somehow it works. First of all, Richard Roxburgh may not be a Holmes for the Ages, whatever that means, but he's bloody good. His mental energy and focus on his quarry, his wisecracking delivery, and that VOICE! Credit where credit is due, he did a fine job. Much better than Rupert Everett's whispery Holmes in the second installment. Ian Hart is fine as Watson, if a bit too much of a blustery hot head, and he more than holds up the middle portion of the film. The supporting cast is good to the point of silliness: Matt Day's Sir Henry is spot on and John Nettles' turn as Dr. Mortimer is absolutely brilliant. This character is seldom more than a third fiddle in film adaptations of THOTB, but Nettles works wonders with it. However: Richard E. Grant as Stapleton is the stuff that dreams are made of. What an incredible performance. Watch him grinning at the dinner table -- the dog is a tool; STAPLETON is the hound of the Baskervilles. That dude is a werewolf, people. Terrific, terrific acting. The hound looks ridiculous via the (non)magic of CGI and some poorly conceived changes take away, but on the whole it's a lot of (dark, dark, bloody) fun.

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.

This was a bad dramatisation of a classic. Although the cast had potential I couldn't help but feel that this dramatisation hammed up Sherlock Holmes horribly and failed to evoke the atmosphere and norms of Edwardian England. It was yet another remake that failed to provide a new insight into the story. I particularly disliked the characterisation of the relationship between Holmes and Watson - it seemed that Holmes held Watson permanently in contempt which is not something that I felt when reading the stories. Even Richard E. Grant was disappointing and seemed to be over acting - I suspect that was due to poor direction. For me the best dramatisation of this story is the Jeremy Brett version which combines wonderful acting, with a real sense of history and atmosphere. In fact for me the 'Jeremy Brett' series is the most authentic and atmospheric dramatisation of the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes to date. If you want 'ham' look at the Basil Rathbone version which is wonderful in a different way and don't waste your time on this.