Highly Overrated But Still Good

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

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.

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.