The Hound of the Baskervilles
Tags: gothic, murder

Plot synopsis:
Dr James Mortimer asks Sherlock Holmes to investigate the death of his friend, Sir Charles Baskerville. Sir Charles was found dead on the grounds of his Devonshire estate, Baskerville Hall, and Mortimer now fears for Sir Charles's nephew and sole heir, Sir Henry Baskerville, who is the new master of Baskerville Hall. The death was attributed to a heart attack, but Mortimer is suspicious, because Sir Charles died with an expression of horror on his face, and Mortimer noticed "the footprints of a gigantic hound" nearby. The Baskerville family has supposedly been under a curse since the era of the English Civil War when ancestor Hugo Baskerville allegedly offered his soul to the devil for help in abducting a woman and was reportedly killed by a giant spectral hound. Sir Charles believed in the curse and was apparently fleeing from something in fright when he died.
Intrigued, Holmes meets with Sir Henry, newly arrived from Canada. Sir Henry has received an anonymous note, cut and pasted from newsprint, warning him away from the Baskerville moors, and one of his new boots is inexplicably missing from his London hotel room. The Baskerville family is discussed: Sir Charles was the eldest of three brothers; the youngest, black sheep Rodger, is believed to have died childless in South America, while Sir Henry is the only child of the middle brother. Sir Henry plans to move into Baskerville Hall, despite the ominous warning message. Holmes and Dr Watson follow him from Holmes's Baker Street apartment back to his hotel and notice a bearded man following him in a cab; they pursue the man, but he escapes. Mortimer tells them that Mr Barrymore, the butler at Baskerville Hall, has a beard like the one on the stranger. Sir Henry's boot reappears, but an older one vanishes.
Holmes sends for the cab driver who shuttled the bearded man after Sir Henry and is both astounded and amused to learn that the stranger had made a point of giving his name as 'Sherlock Holmes' to the cabbie. Holmes, now even more interested in the Baskerville affair but held up with other cases, dispatches Watson to accompany Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall with instructions to send him frequent reports about the house, grounds, and neighbours. Upon arrival at the grand but austere Baskerville estate, Watson and Sir Henry learn that an escaped murderer named Selden is believed to be in the area.
Barrymore and his wife, who also works at Baskerville Hall, wish to leave the estate soon. Watson hears a woman crying in the night; it is obvious to him that it was Mrs Barrymore, but her husband denies it. Watson has no proof that Barrymore was in Devon on the day of the chase in London. He meets a brother and sister who live nearby: Mr Stapleton, a naturalist, and the beautiful Miss Stapleton. When an animalistic sound is heard, Stapleton is quick to dismiss it as unrelated to the legendary hound. When her brother is out of earshot, Mrs Stapleton mistakes Watson for Sir Henry and warns him to leave. She and Sir Henry later meet and quickly fall in love, arousing Stapleton's anger; he later apologises and invites Sir Henry to dine with him a few days later.
Barrymore arouses further suspicion when Watson and Sir Henry catch him at night with a candle in an empty room. Barrymore refuses to answer their questions, but Mrs. Barrymore confesses that Selden is her brother, and her husband is signalling that they have left supplies for him. Watson and Sir Henry pursue Selden on the moor, but he eludes them, while Watson notices another man on a nearby tor. After an agreement is reached to allow Selden to flee the country, Barrymore reveals the contents of an incompletely burnt letter asking Sir Charles to be at the gate at the time of his death. It was signed with the initials L.L.; on Mortimer's advice, Watson questions a Laura Lyons, who admits to writing the letter in hopes that Sir Charles would help finance her divorce, but says she did not keep the appointment. Watson tracks the second man he saw in the area and discovers it to be Holmes, investigating independently in hopes of a faster resolution. Holmes reveals further information: Stapleton is actually married to the supposed Miss Stapleton, and he promised marriage to Laura Lyons to get her cooperation.
They hear a scream and discover the body of Selden, dead from a fall. They initially mistake him for Sir Henry, whose old clothes he was wearing.
At Baskerville Hall, Holmes notices a resemblance between Stapleton and a portrait of Hugo Baskerville. He realises that Stapleton could be an unknown Baskerville family member, seeking to claim the Baskerville wealth by eliminating his relatives. Accompanied by Inspector Lestrade, whom Holmes has summoned, Holmes and Watson travel to the Stapleton home, where Sir Henry is dining. They rescue him from a hound that Stapleton releases while Sir Henry is walking home across the moor. Shooting the animal dead in the struggle, Sherlock reveals that it was a perfectly mortal dog - a mix of bloodhound and mastiff, painted with phosphorus to give it a hellish appearance. They find Miss Stapleton bound and gagged inside the house, while Stapleton apparently dies in an attempt to reach his hideout in a nearby mine. They also find Sir Henry's boot, which was used to give the hound Sir Henry's scent.
Weeks later, Holmes provides Watson with additional details about the case. Stapleton was, in fact, Rodger Baskerville's son, also named Rodger. His now-widow is a South American woman, the former Beryl Garcia. He supported himself through crime for many years, before learning that he could inherit a fortune by murdering his uncle and cousin. Stapleton had taken Sir Henry's old boot because the new, unworn boot lacked his scent. The hound had pursued Selden to his death because of the scent on Sir Henry's old clothes. Mrs Stapleton had disavowed her husband's plot, so he had imprisoned her to prevent her from interfering.
The story ends with Holmes and Watson leaving to see the opera Les Huguenots starring Jean de Reszke.

Review: While Richard Roxburgh is a really good Holmes, Ian Hart is outstanding as Dr. Watson.
Ian Hart brought a fuller dimension to the Dr. Watson character to this Hound of the Baskervilles that many other version have not.
The BBC, here in England, have just broadcast the latest version of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes story "The Hound of the Baskervilles".
Later we see him flicking the ash from his cigar into a champagne glass, these and many other habits are shown which indicate how untidy Holmes is in his private life but when it comes to solving crimes he is like a committed bloodhound.Dr Watson, played by Ian Hart, is another fabulous performer.
Once again, Television leads the way forward in great quality drama.I sincerely hope that the sparkling chemistry displayed between Roxburgh and Hart will bring future installments in the adventures of Holmes and Watson on TV.
The hound itself is best seen in shadows and quick edits as it isn't that scary but the film still manages to have a sense of urgency to it.Roxburgh's Holmes is suitably cheerful and feels outside of the murders, like he is enjoying the mystery of the whole thing.
All present themselves well and people like Grant, Tarbuck (!), Nettles and Cook are interesting additions.Overall this is a fast paced and enjoyable version of the classic tale and is easy to enjoy.
Not being familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle's books (or any other adaptations of them), I was expecting 'Hound of the Baskervilles' to be a typical Agatha Christie-style mystery.
Regardless of whether this is true to the book, it sounds like the basis for an interesting period police procedural.Unfortunately the whole thing falls a bit flat: although it may be filmed as a thriller, there's a curious lack of tension throughout: no-one acts as if they are really scared or shocked at any point.
I am not aware that Sherlock Holmes had a convoluted mixture of Southern Hemisphere accents and Watson reminds me of an East London spiv.The plot does not stay true to the book and the drug taking scenes are not in context and appear merely as gratuitous.
There is no need for the makers to have "improved" the original story by adding scenes of their own e.g Watson being shot,Holmes falling into the mire etc.
Readers may be interested to note that some of the scenes appear to have been filmed around the locations in which Conan Doyle is thought to have set the original story (Buckfastleigh, Devon)..
In brief: the wrong person ends up in quicksand, no one should be hanged, only one person should be gnawed by any kind of animal, there's no seance or pantomime, and the Hound effects are embarrassing.This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles also has a Holmes who drugs himself during his cases, when, presumably, he would need to concentrate.
Need I point out that Holmes used drugs between cases, when he was bored, not while he was working?On the bright side, Richard Grant was excellent as Jack Stapleton.
Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, are my favorite movies, books, old radio programs and TV shows.Basil Rathbone, (1892- 1967), made a film version of The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1939.
Jeremy Brett,(1933-1995), played the title charter on TV for 10 years, and now Richard Roxburgh,(1962), from Australia, are the best and most believable Sherlock Holmes.This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002) is my most favorite.
I long for Richard Roxburgh as Holmes and Ian Hart as Watson to make another Sherlock Holmes film together.The production values were excellent.
Not G-rated.If you like mysteries, detectives, period films, and horror than this film is for you.Richard Roxburgh plays Holmes as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote him..
It's hard not to comment when a great book is adapted so poorly.I must admit, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is not my favorite of the Conan Doyle canon, but it is quite a moody, remarkable tale.
The seance scene and the appearance of the hound- didn't like it.Let me say, Ian Hart as Watson was a very nice choice.
He's an actor I've admired since I saw Backbeat, and I enjoyed him in the role of Watson.I've long thought the time was right for another HOUND adaptation.
Richard Roxborough will rank in my estimate as the second worst Sherlock Holmes I've seen, the cake being taken by whoever played him in the B & W SHERLOCK HOLMES where the master sleuth duly falls in love and gets his girl in the end.I am told that the rationalization of the hound as belonging to the wronged woman actually has 'Conanical' sanction.
Thanks to his planning, Sir Henry is almost mauled to death by the hound, and Holmes himself nearly drowns in the quicksand (Alas, Watson saves him!) The only redeeming feature was the hound, which was at least slightly scary, which is more than I can say of the creatures in the 1939 and 1959 films, and in the two TV versions I've seen, including the Jeremy Brett one.The script writer belongs down there in his 'cleverness' with Michael Dibdin, author of THE LAST SHERLOCK HOLMES STORY which argues that Holmes's cocaine addiction turned him into Jack the Ripper..
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 Hound of the Baskervilles is no doubt among the Sherlock Holmes mysteries to be adapted most frequently, this time the BBC gives it a go.
However, I am sad to say that it does not live up to the standard the BBC has set when it comes to adaptations of classic novels.One might forgive director David Atwood and his crew for making some rather radical changes to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle original, but the film has too many other flaws too.
While Ian Hart performs rather well as Doctor Watson, if not as good as Edward Hardwicke, the casting of Richard Roxburgh as the great Sherlock Holmes is a total disaster.
Compared to the 1988 adaptation of the same story, Roxburgh lacks all the qualities that made Jeremy Brett such a great Holmes.
OK, so it isn't the most original adaptation of Conan Doyle's masterpiece, but truth be told, this version of "The Hound" is pretty good.
While the great debate among Holmesians rages over the more definitive actor to play Holmes (Rathbone or Brett?), Roxburgh has deftly slipped into the role and made it his own, and Hart has managed to produce a fairly good Dr. Watson (not the bungling, Nigel Bruce type).The story need not be retold here, because most people who see this film will have either read the book or seen one of the other versions.
While certainly not sticking close to the original story (for a more complete adaptation, see the Granada television version with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke), this film does manage to introduce some new concepts into the Holmes film genre that make it interesting.
Roxburgh and Brett are the two best-looking men to play Holmes, and the result is that the caricature with deer-stalker and pipe has gradually dissipated and become that of a tall, elegant gentleman.Essentially, what we have with this film is not a perfect film in any sense, but a very interesting interpretation of a story that has been done many, many time by many different people.
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.
Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories.
'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is one of the, perhaps even THE, most famous Sherlock Holmes stories and is the most adapted.
For good reason, it is such a thrilling and scary story and contains a tantalising mystery.This 2002 adaptation could have been better and is not in the same league as those of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing, all wonderful and with vastly superior interpretations of Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxborough) and his aide Watson (Ian Hart) are engaged to investigate the bizarre death of Sir Charles Baskerville, the latest victim of his family's horrible 'curse'.
Watching over the last in the family's line, Sir Henry (Matt Day), Holmes ventures onto the forbidding Dartmoor moors to investigate the demon hound.Before Cumberbatch and Moffat, the BBC tried to reinvigorate Holmes with this 2002 TV film, amping up the action, atmosphere and body horror of Conan Doyle's most famous novel, and with mixed results.
He doesn't exude intelligence, mania, authority or a sense of control like many other interpretations have, and as a result does deflate the proceedings, never fully commanding the scenes the way a Holmes actor ought to.The second issue is a confused mission statement: the screenplay mostly condenses Doyle's story well, and straddles the line of the supernatural very well, if not enhances the whole contrast further with a well handled a séance sequence, but adds a few things.
Turning more low key elements like an interrogation of a cabbie into little action scenes, as well as changing bits of structure and characterization from the various cast, would likely annoy purists, but then throwing things in like Holmes' drug addiction (which honestly is never properly explained in the context of this film) really only makes sense to those already familiar with the books, so just who is the film made for?
As Ian Mckellen once said "It's in the book"Iand Hart's Watson was different, though I thoroughly loved his performance, dragged a little at times but the pace is well kept throughout most of the time.It's definitely worth viewing if you want to see a good Holmes adaptation..
Roxburgh's Holmes will not be to everyone's taste, but he captures the edgy, egotistical Holmes of the stories, while Ian Hart's Watson is a long way from the idiot friend familiar from so many screen versions.
The supporting cast is uniformly strong, and while purists may howl at some of the omissions (most notably Frankland and Laura Lyons) and additions (most notably the seance scene, imported from the 1939 Rathbone version), this is one of the most thoughtful adaptations of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES ever filmed..
Seeing several of the versions of Hound of the Baskervilles I was quite impressed with this latest version.Playing the lead role of Sherlock Holmes is Australian actor Richard Roxburgh who portrays the role of the arrogant detective very well.
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.
Despite a rather remote performance from Richard Roxburgh (in comparison to say Jeremy Brett, or Basil Rathbone), I enjoyed this slightly amended/updated version of the story.I have read the book several times, but am not a purist.
The very nature of film-making means that you must change things sometimes, especially when adapting material originally written over a century ago.And if someone has paid for the rights to a story, then they are entitled to change it as much as they like if they think it will sell better that way.
So ignore the original material and enjoy or not enjoy the film just for itself.Having said that, I think that Ian Hart is one of the best Dr Watson's we've seen, certainly far better than the unfortunate bumbling of Nigel Bruce for instance.
In many Sherlock Holmes stories on the screen you can't help but say: "What would Holmes be doing with an idiot for a friend?" I think Ian Hart has played Watson on at least one other occasion, and he was also good playing Conan Doyle in "Finding Neverland", which was a nice touch.Just watch this version of the story and enjoy it for itself..
What I do care about is that never before have a watched any version of The Hound of the Baskervilles and wanted to go to bed with Holmes.
To protect the new squire (Matt Day) and eliminate all possible threats to his life.As the clues begin to unfurl and the meeting of an eccentric neighbour Stapleton (Richard E Grant) and his stunning sister Beryl (Neve Macintosh) and a further evidence of a disinherited Baskerville who died in poverty, Holmes and Watson face their biggest and most evil opponent.Richard Roxburgh takes the stage as the enigmatic Sherlock Holmes while Ian Harte plays the thoughtful and reserved Dr Watson in this readapted tale of murder, terror, and suspense..
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson are called in to solve the case.Richard Roxbourgh isn't the best Holmes actor ever, but with his constant over-acting he makes a good portrait.
I cannot believe it was filmed on Dartmoor, as I know the moors well.The cast was good, but I would have preferred Richard E Grant to have played Holmes, surely a role he is long overdue to play?
Set the hound on him!Casting isn't great, either, as Australian Richard Roxburgh makes the second worst Holmes in recent memory - the top "honours" there go to Matt Frewer for his snide, spastic sleuth in those awful Hallmark TV films.
Let's just say that Stevie Wonder could see the difference between Sir Henry and Selden in this production, which makes Holmes look like a total idiot at a crucial plot point...And the hound itself?
The bad news is that the last ten minutes ruin everything that's gone before; the WORSE news is that what goes before wasn't that hot to begin with.It has been rightly said that "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is the only Sherlock Holmes story where the atmosphere overwhelms the character of Holmes himself.
Watson (played by Ian Hart) is at last an intelligent doctor rather than the bumbling idiot he's usually portrayed as, and Richard E.Grant makes for a sly, scheming Stapleton.
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).
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.
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..
Closed that is except for Sir Charles best friend Dr. James Mortimer (John Nettles) who visits London to try & enlist the help of Sherlock Holmes (Richard Roxburgh) & his assistant Dr. Watson (Ian Hart).
Because this was made as a one off Christmas special someone obviously thought it would be a good idea to set it during the festive period & on Christmas Day which seems like an afterthought & totally unnecessary.Director Attwood has made one of the finest looking Hound of the Baskervilles adaptations, shot in England by the BBC who know how to make great period drama (I should know I've sat through enough of 'em!), trust me this looks marvellous throughout & the CGI hound looks fabulous & very ferocious, the best one I've seen.
But why, why does the Holmes story always have to be THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES?