| 
 enlarge | Director: David Attwood
Actors: Richard Roxburgh, Ian Hart, Richard E. Grant, Matt Day, John Nettles (ii)
Studio: BBC Warner
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy New: $12.97
You Save: $7.01 (35%)
New (21) Used (9) from $10.66
Avg. Customer Rating:  63 reviews
Sales Rank: 11434
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dvd-video, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 100
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: DE1731E
ISBN: 0790774208
UPC: 794051173126
EAN: 9780790774206
ASIN: B0000797E7
Theatrical Release Date: January 19, 2003
Release Date: January 21, 2003
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: This item is BRAND NEW, factory fresh, and sealed. May have store or price stickers affixed.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Thoroughly Enjoyable October 16, 2005
3 out of 6 found this review helpful
I am quite distressed that viewers found the chemistry between Roxburgh and Hart lacking. I thought that this convincingly portrayed their relationship. I thought both were the perfect age ( I am sick of seeing older, pudgier Watson and Holmes: the latter Jeremy Brett's are artrocious ) and both blended and worked well off of each other.
Though I whole heartedly agree that Brett is the most convincing of the Holmes, I was pleased with the somewhat different and thoroughly unique portrayal that Roxburgh gave us. He made the character his own without trying to copy any previous actors.
For those who feel this is the worst adaptation may I implore you to view the Matt Frewer CTV adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. These "Canadian" Holmes' are the worst in television history. They are excruciatingly embarrassing to watch. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, as well as that "Ripper"-esque one starring Christopher Plummer are also fairly rotten.
And for those concerned with the accuracy of this interpretation, may I direct you to the many Sherlockians who enjoy the Rathbone movies: though Watson is portrayed as a knuckle-headed oaf and very few take place in their actual time period. Believe it or not, Holmes did not help with Nazi Terrorism.
Further still, Hart's Watson is intriguing, light-hearted and clever in his own way. Thank the Good Lord they didn't have some portly cheese-head with his foot stuck in a proverbial bucket.
 The Wrong Version September 3, 2005
8 out of 8 found this review helpful
This is a wonderful story and production...originally. However, the BBC Video (company) version I purchased which is 100 minutes in length had been edited so much that there were entire scenes missing right from the begining! I know because I taped the original when it aired on Masterpiece Theatre.
Buyer beware: This is not the full length version of the otherwise excellent program.
The worst "Hound" in the kennel May 19, 2005
8 out of 10 found this review helpful
This version of the venerable Conan Doyle tale is without doubt the worst ever made, edging out even the 1972 TV version with Stewart Granger and the late-70s burlesque send-up starting Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. By this point, there seems to be no reason to remake the story at all, unless it is as a vehicle for a new, dynamic Holmes. And this "Hound" does feature an actor who might just become the Holmes of his generation... unfortunately, he's playing Stapleton (Richard E. Grant). Who we are stuck with as Holmes is Richard Roxburgh, a stolid actor who has no physical resemblance to the character, based on either Conan Doyle's description or the original illustrations, and who plays the role with all the personality of a coffee table. Even worse, however, is Ian Hart, whose petulant, unpleasant and dour take on Watson is actually an ordeal to sit through. All Holmes films rely to a certain measure on the chemistry between the Holmes/Watson team, but these two resemble nothing so much as a gay couple on the verge of breaking up. What this version does do is create the hound through digital animation (which was inevitable), but the result is a beast that looks an awful lot like digital animation. Stick to the Hammer 1959 version with Peter Cushing, or the classic 1939 Rathbone one, or even the somewhat disappointing Jeremy Brett version from the mid-80s, and don't bother with this.
 Too Bland Holmes, Too Young Watson, and Too Many Changes April 10, 2005
18 out of 22 found this review helpful
When I heard that there is a new version of this Holmes story, and it contains Richard E Grant, I thought HE plays the great slueth himself. I thought then, well, Jeremy Brett is no longer with us, but he could be as good as him. Wrong! Not that Mr. Grant is not good. It turned out that Richard Roxburgh is Holmes, and sorry to say this, but his rendition is simply bland and colorless. He looks more like Lestrade, that famous but curiously unmemorable inspector.
But why not Richard E? Roxburgh, though a good actor, is not tall enough to be Holmes. (Richard E Grant is very tall.) But well, let's forget that now. Whoever plays Holmes must speak like Holmes. However, Holmes' delightfully ironic attitudes are gone in this version. To make matters worse, Ian Hart's Watson is too young to be convincing, and their speeches and manners are too modern. Look at one scene in which the doctor examines a dead body using a pair of white rubber gloves, as if he is a coroner in 'X-Files' and you can see that the produces didn't think much of the details. The two principal characters are so impossible that the film has no chance from the beginning.
There's more. I am not against changing the situations or story if the adaptation really needs it. However, this version went too far, especially in the second half of the book. Though the creepy atmosphere is effectively presented on the screen, the film treats some characters very clumsily. Sir Henry Baskerville, newly arriving at England, is too grim and even arrogant when his manners should be more Americanized; the butler Mr. Barrymore at the Bakerville Hall does not look mysterious enough; most incredibly, Selden the convict jumps through the window, breaking the glass like Buster Keaton. And look what happens to Miss (or Mrs) Stapleton. Oh, that's way too atrocious, and Conan Doyle would be horrified to hear the news.
Certainly this version gives a new approach to the already familiar material to us. But the point is, after all, why should we see a new version while we have already Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, and most of all, Conan Doyle? Why do we keep on watching filmed versions of the great detective? The only reason is that we want to meet Holmes, more lively and cynical one, and we need a better one than this.
Not perfect -- but worth a look for Holmes fans January 6, 2005
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
This 2003 BBC "Hound" has some flaws -- in particular the poorly done digital hound -- but the director/screenwriters have taken some interesting liberties with the Conan Doyle classic. Making Holmes and Watson younger (and possibly gayer) than the traditional characters is a bold choice. Also, their incorporation of historically accurate Victorian era elements -- like a fascination with the occult (Conan Doyle himself was a true believer) -- adds some spice as well. In sum, the film is not a replacement for reading the original; but if you've read the classic, the film gives you something to ponder over a cup of tea.
|
|
|