Extreme Reviews


Why is it that this production seems to encourage such strong reactions. The reviews are polarised between those that loved the film and those that hated it with a passion. They can't all be right. Is it the Conan Doyle nuts verses the rest?

reply

I THINK the conan doyal fans are a little hot headed Even if there were some small changes, it still is a good movie. do yo think half the people who loved lord of the rings would like it if it went straight by the book? people thought the watered down version was confusing enough.
I personally love this rendition of sherlock holmes. it is one of my favorites because it shows him for what he is. the other sherlock holmes' idolized him and made him seem more perfect. this one shows him, mistakes and all, drug addictions, and taking advantage watson. the others show holmes without drugs and just belittling watson every once and a while.

SEE THE COLTS AT DAZELL FEILD IN DUBUQUE, IOWA THIS SUMMER FOR MUSIC ON THE MARCH! IT'LL BE A BLAST!

reply

[deleted]

I liked it and Ian Hart is the perfect Watson. Long may Ian Hart play Watson.

reply

Ian Hart is dreadful as Watson in this and in the subsequent adventure with Rupert Everett. Not only is there no chemistry between him and Roxburgh, but Hart's Watson appears to hate Holmes. He spends half the film ranting like a psychopath at him and appears to have no admiration for his powers let alone friendship. Does Hart consider himself a Holmes/Doyle afficiando/expert? I hope not because he gives another odd performance (as Arthur Conan Doyle) in Finding Neverland-Luckily, this is mercifully short. I don't know what's happened to Hart's career of late, because he is capable of good performances (Michael Collins springs to mind)-bad choices I guess? Check out his preposterous beard in the Virgin Queen-okay that's make up's fault (although surely he could grow a beard?)but he doesn't work pre 20th century somehow-he's not convincingly period.

The French haven't the nature for war. They'd rather eat and make love with their faces than fight.

reply

I couldn't disagree more.
Ian Hart is fantastic as Watson - the first actor to give the character personality and emotional depth; to depict him as a real human being with feelings. I love and adore Sherlock Holmes films generally and have a soft spot for Nigel Bruce and Edward Hardwick but Hart really was the best thing in this excellent adaptation of Hound of the Baskervilles. He had a great rapport with Roxburgh as Holmes. They had a thoughtful and complicated relationship. The usual chummy sidekick stuff is fine but we've seen it all a hundred times before.

As for Hart not being good at period drama - what rubbish.
I don't know about his beard in Virgin Queen (haven't seen it) but he was exceptionally good in Longitude and more recently in Eroica both of which are extremely superior period dramas made for TV.

reply

There was no rapport at all between Roxburgh and Hart! Roxburgh is a dreadful actor in my opinion (See also "Moulin Rouge" & "Van Helsing"!), Hart is not, but in this he is. This is the worst adaptation of the Hound since the equally awful Hammer version. You might have blown your credibility by citing Nigel Bruce as a great Watson, but against all sense or reason, I love his portrayal-the man is just so loveable and funny. The best Watsons are, in my opinion, David Burke and Edward Hardwicke. You mention the usual "chummy sidekick stuff", I would prefer to call Watson a staunch friend but in any case, he realises Holmes is his intellectual superior and is his friend-that is what is required. It does not make him any less of a man or character.

Ian Hart can be exceptionally good. I love his performances in "The End Of The Affair", "Michael Collins" and "The Englishman Who..." for instance. And you're right in saying that "Longitude" was top class television (Though sadly I cannot remember Hart's performance). "Eroica" was not a superior drama, however. In my view, it was second rate and rather dull. I'll give ground and admit that Hart was quality in it though. Finally, "The Virgin Queen"- he gets ever worse in it. In last Sunday's episode, he did some scenes in a bizarre West Country accent and other scenes in standard R.P-when an actor does that, you can't take them seriously. If you're a fan of Hart, you should watch it, or perhaps you shouldn't if you wish to protect yourself.

The French haven't the nature for war. They'd rather eat and make love with their faces than fight.

reply

We are obviously coming at this from different angles.

I find I enjoy most Sherlock Holmes adaptations and pastiche efforts. They can be great fun particularly if you know the original stories and can make connections - see where the adaptor is coming from etc
On that basis I really like the more off the wall stuff. I think the Hammer Hound is fantastic probably for all the reasons others dislike it. Equally (and I didn't cite him as 'great') I enjoy Bruce's village idiot Watson, dithering about and falling on his arse, in the context of the excellent Rathbone films. In fact I can't think of a single Holmes film I really loathe. They all entertain me to a greater or lesser extent and that is all I ask.
I really loved this Hound and for me it is up there with the Rathbone one. I liked the way they told the story - the dramatic climax in particular. I thought the Holmes Watson relationship was really interesting. It seemed to me the first real attempt on film (it has been done in pastiche novels) to depict the Watson behind the stories and to imagine what might have really happenend before Watson the author tidied up events into neat adventures the main aim of which was to celebrate Holmes, a man he clearly venerated despite his numerous character flaws. I thought the performances here were very thoughtful and the detail of Hart's performance in particular, is worth paying attention to.

Yes, I suppose you could say I am a fan of Hart although one that does not feel compelled to watch everything he appears in. I'm surprised you can't recall him in Longitude - he played William Harrison a key figure in the second half of the drama and shared top billing with Michael Gambon and Jeremy Irons. Have to disagree about Eroica - I thought it was outstanding as a drama that told the story behind a great piece of music.
And finally I wouldn't watch Virgin Queen even if Hart was cast as old Liz herself! I'm all 'Elizabethed' out (Blanchett and Mirren on film and TV, Harriet Walter on stage, not to mention David Starkey!!) and wish to heaven they'd do something different.

reply

Funny how you really critise other actors loloandpete and yet in you're profile you call yourself a "professional actor" Though I have never heard of you....then again I doubt "actors" such as yourself are popular when you use snobbish sentences such as:

"you blow any credibility you might have had straight away by saying"

reply

Ha-ha, I've just seen this! You're right, I do criticise other actors, but I also champion them. Every one has the right to their opinion regardless of their profession. You might say I am snobbish if you wish, but the sentence you use to illustrate this, is qualified by a compliment. Also, in my criticism of Ian Hart, I point out at least three performances of his I admire. I am a jobbing actor and not in the class of Hart, but I still disagree with his portrayal of Watson. Lastly, I'm a character actor, so you probably never will hear of me- the thought of fame would apall me anyway and I'm not pretty enough or slim enough to be a leading man.

The French haven't the nature for war. They'd rather eat and make love with their faces than fight.

reply

Talking of funny facial fungus: John Nettle's in this production is one of the worst I have ever seen.

So that's a huge wooden spoon to this production in (so far):

Script
Casting
Acting
Directing
Cinematography
Makeup

A complete waste of videotape.

reply

I have seen several versions of this story and this one has its plus and minus elements as do them all. It does not stray too far from the story, and the characteriztions including Watson are good; except for Holmes - who is far less indicative of Doyle's character. Only Roger Moore did a worse job.

reply