The Worst Film Ever

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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 must tell that when I hear the name Sherlock Holmes, Jeremy Brett appears in front of my eyes as the master detective. My opinion is that he is unsurpassable in the role. I have seen this version of the Hound some years ago, and I was rather skeptical at the beginning.OK, there are some mistakes - for example, Holmes NEVER used cocaine to stimulate his mind while solving a case, he shoot up when he was bored. And the famous Hound became too supernatural for my taste, and they left out some parts from the original novel. But the overall impression was positive.Richard Roxburgh was a little unusual Holmes, but his performance was good. The fact that he is handsome added some kind of sexuality to the role - it worked with Jeremy Brett as well, he was very handsome too. Ian Hart was convincing as Watson, and Richard E. Grant was superb as the evil Stapleton.The Granada version of the Hound will always have its soft spot in my heart, but I recommend this film as well.

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.

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.