Page 1 of BBC`s Hound Of The Baskervilles...why..?

Why do they bother to try and re-ash this story it`s been done to death,
it was bad casting,bad acting, p*** poor special effect`s (yes there was some ) what a dissapointment and waste of licence payers money.

Mr Doyle must be spinning and spinning.....Another £4.99 DVD on it`s way folks!

This item was edited on Friday, 27th December 2002, 19:30

Okay it wasn`t fantastic and nowhere near as good as the book or the old black and white film version, but I thought it was enjoyable Boxing Day fare.

Nick

True, it wasn`t as good as it could have been, even the wife, who is normally determined to enjoy anything she `likes the look of` thought it was crap.

The high point was Professor Quirrell doing a smashing turn as Watson, even out-acting Richard Roxburgh, who`s accent was extremely questionable. After his south African attempt in MI2, I half expected him to come out with `I think I bloke his jore` when they kill the crap cgi-fest that was the `hound`

I`m guessing that the sfx was performed by the BBC team that do walking with dinosaurs, which, while informative and entertaing, should never be used as a reference point to how how dinosaurs look, and indeed move. They`ve done well with the technology, but there`s always a sense of `cheapness` about the dino`s, and that corried over to the hound.

I`ve always thought that Baskervilles was one of the weaker Holmes stories, mainly relying on the hammer-horror feeling surrounding the hound, rather than the strength of the mystery.

Plus Lisa Tarbuck again proved that she`s wasted on Linda Green

Scooby Doo where are you?

i agree. why waste money re-doing them or re-imagining or whatever they call it. why not put the originals on. because they are in b&w, and the kids wont watch them. as soon as i heard hotb was on i new i wouldnt watch, just like with the new chips, nothing wrong with the new ones im sure, but the originals are so much better. i was just bored in general with the tv they put on, no imagination at all, thank god for my dvd player!

walking with dinosaurs has been done to death, it looks worse ever time its on, and yes the hound was not good,

"BBC`s Hound Of The Baskervilles...why..?"

Seeing as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has been dead for a long, long time, there are no rights problems with using the very well-known character of Sherlock Holmes. So, apart from the production costs, the BBC don`t have to pay anything to remake a tried-and-tested formula. Cheap as chips, my dear Watson.

Anybody wants any more info on this pile of tosh then go to...

http://www.bakerstreetdozen.com/roxhoun.html

The review says it all.

Cant wait for the two Walking With Dinosaurs Specials that are coming in the next few days.

Even the 1983 remake with Ian Richardson and Martin Shaw (sporting a credible yank accent) was fantastic compared to this tosh!!!!!
Didn`t anyone watch it before they broadcast it surely someone could have said this is crap lets can it.

This item was edited on Monday, 30th December 2002, 00:10

I thought it was OK and at least the BBC made an effort unlike ITV which kept repeating programmes that were only on a few months ago.

But I also think that Richard Roxborough should be given another chance. He wasn`t that bad and it was interesting to see a more action orientated Holmes. But, I still don`t think you can beat Jeremy Brett as Sherlock though.

And it was good to see Dr Watson showing attitude.

But most importantly, Liza Tarbuck was looking very foxy even without make up. Makes a change to have an attractive woman on TV that doesn`t resemble a stick insect. Just a shame the BBC didn`t take another liberty with the story and make her part bigger (excuse the pun!).