*Potential Spoilers*. I enjoyed this interpretation of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" but have to say that I was annoyed when the film-makers chose to unveil the culprit of the drama to the audience way too early. The beauty of the many previous "Hound" films was to uphold the "mystery" of the giant dog that terrorised Dartmoor and the Baskerville family. It was virtually a case of "whatdunnit" as opposed to "whodunnit", a red-herring that tantalised the audience until the end when Holmes and his sidekick Watson were able to solve the inexplicable happenings by employing pure deductive reasoning. In this version, the culprit is made known to the audience fairly early on, his method is made blatantly known to us and as the movie progresses it takes little to guess the motivation behind his actions. The film-makers, I believe, have shot themselves in the foot with this adaptation. A wonderful atmosphere had been created, windswept and rain-sodden moors powerfully conveying the danger and mystery of the local terrain. Until the mystery is revealed, that is. No amount of windswept scenery or dark foreboding nighttime shots, though eerie and beautiful, can maintain a sense of mystery that doestn´t, in fact, exist. This sense of anti-climax is heightened by the fact that, whilst we know who the culprit is, we also know that Holmes is also aware, from fairly early on, who the actual culprit is as well. Any element of shock or surprise has thus been chucked out the window. And as for the Holmes character, well perhaps I have the image of Basil Rathbone too firmly engraved in my minds eye to accept any other actor as the master sleuth. Ian Hart as Watson, however, was worthy casting.
Review of The Hound of the Baskervilles
