Wonderful character development!

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This production is first rate on many levels. The adaptation of the story is really superb, with many clever choices that work to condense and focus the narrative. The writers could, however, have done a better job in demonstrating Holmes applying his deductive powers to the clues presented. And the depiction of Holmes using cocaine while investigating a case is both totally contrary to the original stories and a jarring and distracting note that does absolutely nothing to further the story.The CGI "hound" is actually pretty awful. They would have done better with a real dog, altered as Stapleton is said to have altered him in the story.Other than that, the production values are quite excellent. And Ian Hart is one of the best Watsons ever to grace the screen, small or large. John Nettles' Dr. Mortimer is also excellent, and Richard Grant is one of the best Stapletons ever. The rest of the smaller parts are also well done.However, Richard Roxburgh delivers only what I would call a workmanlike rendition of Sherlock Holmes that is never fully convincing. The problem is that he never quite inhabits the role, especially in terms of Holmes' intense energy; he is simply too laid back. It also doesn't help that he bears no physical resemblance to the canonical Holmes. Actually, Richard Grant would have been a better choice to portray Holmes.Nevertheless, this production most definitely rewards the viewer with many moments to appreciate.

As much as I am a fan of the earlier versions of Sherlock Holmes, I am thrilled to see it done with modern actors and with modern sets.Richard Roxburgh (Moulin Rouge!, Mission: Impossible II, Van Helsing) makes for a great Holmes, and Ian Hart (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) a great Dr. Watson. One can only hope to see more of both of them in these roles.While we all know the story, it is not spoiled by a retelling, especially with such fine actors.The scenery is vastly improved in this version, and the hound is very ferocious looking to boot.

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.

Film students, gather around.One of the best things in films to study is how different chapters of a franchise change as different artists become involved. Batman, Alien, even goobers like Halloween. Just as interesting is to compare different approaches to films that respect their material. Film versions of Hamlet for instance. There's a terrific example with "Eat Drink Man Woman" and a new carbon copy "Tortilla Soup."Different editions of Holmes are illustrative because they really are different, radically so. And the "Hounds" seem to denote the greatest swings.This is probably the least attentive to the written story that I know. An important pair of characters is omitted, greatly changing the mystery. The wonder about the supernatural is toned down. They added a séance, but took away the soul of the thing which was an overwhelming evidence of the supernatural untangled as the intertwined logic of three murderers.(In the original story, the beast was an ordinary large dog with florescent paint. Here, the beast really is something a bit alien.)So what started as a grand battle between logic and superstition, which had grand deceptions and counterdeceptions confounded by accident, which had a master, THE master involved.Alas, the master here is actually secondary to Watson — who pulls HIM out of the muck. Its a complete turnaround from the Rathbone Holmes who pulled his comic Watson from identical muck.The overall effect is bland. There's no moody atmosphere, no champion, no deduction, no logic. There's no lust as in the original. One wonders why anyone would watch this at all except to fill time. Unless, unless you are trying to discover why film works and what discovered narrative is all about.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.