everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

This might not be the worst Sherlock Holmes movie in existence - "The Seven Per Cent Solution" was both gross and dull, and it has to be said that Peter Cook's allegedly comic version of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" in 1978 was truly dreadful, an abysmal abomination for which no excuses can be made, and even Cook himself said as much. Still, this travesty of the great old yarn comes pretty close. The villain of the exercise is the scriptwriter, Allen Cubitt, who seems to have contempt for the story, for its author, and, indeed, for Sherlock Holmes. This Holmes is not only utterly uncharismatic; he's arrogant, cruel, irresponsible and - the final insult - incompetent. Richard Roxburgh, badly miscast, seems bored and is boring. It must be conceded that Watson is not depicted as a buffoon, which is something - indeed Ian Hart might, with a good script, have been one of the great Watsons, alongside James Mason and Colin Blakely - and there are a few nice bits of atmosphere at the start, where the scenery of the Isle Of Man is effectively employed. But that's it. One might wonder, incidentally, if Cubitt has ever actually read the novel - he seems to have based his script more on the 1939 movie with Basil Rathbone, which is far from ideal as a version, but still lots more fun that this. The CGI hound, by the way, was probably inspired by the poster for the 1959 Hammer version. That was much more interesting, too.

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.

This could have been good, but it's too much a "Hound for Our Times". It obviously appeals to people who've never read the book or seen any of the other versions. Richard E Grant stands out of the morass as an excellent Stapleton - how about keeping him on and remaking the story? The "my wife's a medium" bit is not from the book but from the 40s Rathbone/Bruce version. If only film makers would stick to Conan Doyle's unerring Shakespearean prose! Nobody even says the words "Great Grympen Mire"! And we need the scene setting at the beginning where Holmes and Watson divine the character of Dr Mortimer from his walking stick, and then Mortimer's telling of the story. Footprints - a man's or a woman's? Mr Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound! Though Jeremy Brett was a great Holmes, his Baskerville completely muffed the suspense. The Peter Cushing TV version is the best I've ever seen. Little joke from the 40s version - whenever they go out onto the moor, you hear tropical frogs on the sound track. A final comment on this Nettles/Grant version (I've already forgotten who played H and W) - the most frightening moment was the embarrassing hey nonny no Christmas festivities scene. Time stood still, and not in a good way.