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.

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.

It's a long rime after the first written version was ever published today and Richard Roxburgh is trying the impossible and he has to succeed. Be another Sherlock Holmes in the horror stricken and horror striking Hound of the Baskervilles. We all know the story and the end, so it would be no use and useless to tell it all over again. It has not changed as for the perverted history of these noble families who fought on the good side at the time of the Civil War but find themselves today on the wrong side, thought that does not matter any more. And their perverted Cromwellism is transported into a weirdo story about a violent ancestor who killed his wife out of we don't exactly know what but who got killed in the end by her faithful hound. The dog, man's best friend can, also be a woman's best friend and her male opponent worst enemy. Transport that at the end of the 19th century, slightly respected in the dirt in the streets and no paving and cobble-stones, even in Baker Street, and at the same time modernized for our fragile little taste. So the poor Sherlock Holmes spectacularly inject his heroin in his arm, though I would have sworn it should have been cocaine. And many other little details like that. The special effects are definitely more modern and the storm and tempest really looks like a storm or tempest. The mud looks like mud and the rain seems to be wet. Then this version pushes some dramatic elements a little bit farther, like the end of the poor sister-wife of the bastard son. The beast looks like something you could meet in Saint James Park, a cross between a hound and a boar, another great success of our world famous cloning and genetically manipulating laboratories. The bastard's death though is nearly a good retribution. I preferred the original version, slower, more deserved, more dignified by the amount of time it takes to go through the slow process of choking to death. But well, times are a-changing and as for thrilling horror we definitely do a better special effects job than in the 60s of last century. Enjoy that new version if you come across it.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

As everyone here has already said, the casting was quite terrible and Holmes and Watson's symbolic friendship was condemned to hell in this 'adaptation', but it had some interesting elements. This may be a bit of a SPOILER!!!!! but I liked the confrontation at the end where Watson went on somewhat of a rampage. I also like that he got shot, which did add a bit of... something-- some kind of emotional tension between the two supposed friends. Speaking of, it did introduce the interesting idea of 'what if Watson did hate Holmes?' but if that's the case, then why are we here?Anyway, the movie seemed to try patch things up between the two in the final scene where Holmes offers a nice evening to Watson, in which I forgot the response, but it's there. (Shows how impressive it was, huh?)Point is, if you wanna see a good adaptation of the Baskerville story, along with proper casts, watch the Russian one with Livanov and Solomin. Best, most accurate, in my honest opinion.