GamerTab That was an excellent one.

AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Troll_Dahl A few words on this adaptation of Hound, which seems to get mixed reviews: it does have its weaknesses. There are some lovely shots of moorlands but they are occasionally interspersed at odd moments, not exactly where you would expect establishing shots. The film does give the impression of a low budget in this regard, as well as in the fact that special effects seem limited, especially concerning the titular dog. When Seldon is attacked by the dog, if you're watching carefully, you'll catch footage of Sir Henry's attack. But there is a great amount of period visual detail evoking Victorian England that helps make up for the shortcomings.Performances are generally excellent. Although some say Jeremy Brett's health was already effecting his performances by this time (this was one of the middle installments of his tenure as Holmes), I just watched this film again recently and don't see it. Just as in the story, Holmes is largely out of the picture while Watson stays with Sir Henry at Baskerville Hall, but there are some really lovely and clever inserts giving us fleeting glimpses of Holmes' activities and clues of what is to come, and whenever he is on camera, Brett shines. I love the excitement in his voice when Dr. Mortimer, upon meeting Holmes at Grimpen, asks if he is any closer to solving the case and if there is indeed a hound, and his simple answers: "I am. There is." The moment is played perfectly. The early scenes at Baker Street, with Holmes and Watson examining Mortimer's stick and Mortimer asking for a cast of Holmes "dolichocephalic skull", are equally delightful. Listen for Brett's signature wonderful laugh. "Behave and sit down, Dr. Mortimer". The demanding role of Dr. Watson is here ably filled by Edward Hardwicke. Some prefer David Burke, whom Hardwicke replaced in this series, but I find Hardwicke to be splendid and quite convincing as Holmes' likable, solid but sensitive gentleman companion. He does a good job of holding the fort in Holmes' absence. Other standout performances include Alastair Duncan as Dr. Mortimer, an eccentric physician and scientist, who shares a good chemistry in scenes with Dr. Watson. Watch them when Watson comes upon Mortimer's paleontological dig site on the moors. Also, James Faulkner has a strong presence as Stapleton; Ronald Pickup makes the small role of Barrymore, the Baskerville butler, surprisingly full and warm; and keep your eye out for Bernard Horsfall, as Frankland, a colorful local astronomer--a very fun performance. Kristopher Tabori is quite solid as Sir Henry Baskerville, a man who has spent most of his life in America but is trying to be English again. The proliferation of clues and the story structure is generally handled well, although one or two sequences are strangely short, making it seem rather choppy. Some say the pace is too slow but I don't especially mind. I think the movie works well in terms of pacing when you let it soak in. It does work gradually but there are moments of genuine Gothic atmosphere. There isn't much action; it's more of a suspense piece and, in keeping with the novel, there's plenty of talking, meal time scenes, etc. I think it has an episodic quality and this, too, is in keeping with the novel, as much of Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles is told through diary entries and letters of Dr. Watson and it was originally published serially. I think if you let it unfold on its own terms, not expecting wall-to-wall breathless excitement, it works pretty well, although it could be that a mini-series format would suit this novel quite well. It also true that music is used minimally. This works at times and may sap the movie of energy at others. As Patrick Gowers' scores for this series are always wonderful, the music is somewhat missed, but I can also see points at which the eerie silence of the remote moorlands is an atmospheric asset. It's definitely a deliberate choice not to be heavy-handed with music but to let a sense of ambiance in and allow quiet to do much of the work. And again, the filming locations for Grimpen are beautiful as is the gorgeous house used for Baskerville Hall. The locations are full of Gothic atmosphere and used very well. I enjoy just seeing Baskerville Hall on camera and getting some of those lovely nature shots. Dr. Watson describes "the beauties of the moor in autumn" and we can see what he means--beautiful.Overall, this film is highly recommended for fans of the Brett series and of Holmes, especially if you're happy with a low-key, quiet movie that is engaging and has rewards for people are patient with it and let it soak in. And do expect it to be a somewhat low-budget TV film. It's 1980s English TV. It is what it is. For newcomers to the series, The Sign of Four would be recommended first of the feature films, as it's exciting and spirited and a good adventure mystery. Hound of the Baskervilles may be better for when you already love the series and want some more of it to savor on a quiet evening. Like any series, it obviously works better when you're invested in the characters. It's not a perfect movie but along with being based upon a truly classic tale, it's very good for its time and place, with fine acting, filming locations, and photography-- and added pleasure for dog lovers!

Ed The cast is uniformly excellent and Jeremy Brett was probably at his peak in this."The Hound of the Baskervilles" is among the most famous in the Holmes canon (Note that Umberto Eco even named his "medieval Friar-detective "William of Baskerville" in "The Name of the Rose!) and this version probably exceeds even the early Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce version. Mr. Bruce always played Watson as a silly ass which Edward Hardwicke never did and this more sober approach benefits the story immensely.Brett played the part of Holmes over the period of many years and famously identified with the character to the point that it probably ruined his health both physically and mentally and may have helped lead to his early death. This identification was so complete that he was really over the top in many of the later installments.But not here.Special mention must be made of Kristoffer Tabori as Sir Henry, the American heir to Baskerville Hall.Though the story and its denouement are familiar to most devotees of the Holmes canon, this TV film version can still be watched with great pleasure.

Robert J. Maxwell Holmes (Brett) and Watson (Hardwicke) investigate the legend of the murderous hound that haunts the newly arrived Sir Henry Baskerville (Tabori) at his country estate. Is it really supernatural, a curse handed down through the centuries because of an outrage committed by the original owner of the gloomy Baskerville Hall? Maybe, and maybe not. After all, there are some pretty freaky people living around the Great Grimpen Mire. Stapleton the butterfly collector and his attractive wife. The litigious and eccentric astronomer Frankland. Doctor Mortimer looks innocent enough but he hates rabbits and shoots them dead at every opportunity. Then there are Sir Henry's servants, the dour Barrymore and his sobbing wife, who clearly have something to hide. And maybe the escaped mass murderer Selden is hanging around the Tors and making mischief. I suppose we can excuse the local Vicar -- or CAN we? Overall, this is about as good as this familiar tale is going to get. The performances are all at least adequate and Tabori is somewhat more than that. The moment when he first meets Holmes and Watson, for instance. Hearing them enter the room, he turns around, gives them an up-and-down appraisal, and says, "Hello," in a tone that perfectly expresses curiosity combined with an offer of genuine friendship.This film is the length of a feature, but as in the other episodes of the series, every period detail is punctiliously observed. It sticks far more closely to Conan-Doyle's original story that any of the other versions I've seen -- and there have been many.The 1939 version with Rathbone and Bruce was fine in its own way. Rathbone's range as an actor was limited but Holmes was definitely in his ball park. Yet the earlier version changes some properties of the original story and drops others altogether. The servants' names are changed from Barrymore to Barryman, for example, and for obvious reasons, including John, Ethel, Lionel, John Drew, and Drew. The little scenic tour provided by the misused typist, Laura Lyons, doesn't appear in 1939, although a completely irrelevant séance takes up some screen time. We can't blame the writers. Adaptations juggle things around. Olivier's "Hamlet" dumped Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. But the Rathbone/Bruce rendition was shot entirely in the studio among papier-mache rocks and it shows. When people speak out of doors you hear echoes where there should be no echoes. There was a 1959 Hammer version too but it's only a distant relative of Conan-Doyle's story and can't claim much in the way of an inheritance.We don't get to see much of the Hound of the Baskervilles, which is just as well. If you get too close a look at a monster on the screen, you can't help noticing that it's just a man in a rubber suit, or a big dog painted with phosphorous. On the other hand, we get another one of those gags about Watson being served unappetizing food, the kind of laugh that Hitchcock was so fond of. When Watson visits Holmes' little apartment in a Bronze Age tomb, Holmes serves him a plate of what he calls "stew" and rubs his palms and smiles with pride at his own cooking. It looks like dog food. Watson takes a spoonful and says, "Holmes, this is disgusting." Holmes' smile fades and he comments, "I suppose it would have been better hot."Grenada TV, the producers, ought to get a medal for digging up their rustic locations from all over England. Oh, those stately homes. I never realized there were so many. Those were the days alright. Imagine being Sir Henry Baskerville -- hound or no hound. Surrounded by cooks and servants and gardeners and pages squires and vassals and whatnot. What does he do on his day off? He can't just lie around the house all day, because that's his JOB.

TheLittleSongbird This was a very fine adaptation of a great book. True it does start off slowly, like the book, and I don't think it is quite as good as 1987's Sign of Four. That was creepy, suspenseful, and featured a wonderfully understated performance from the late great John Thaw. The minor negatives aside, this is a conveniently faithful and suspenseful adaptation.It does benefit from fine camera work, wonderful scenery and costumes, and the music score was superb. And there are some genuinely creepy moments, in particular the opening and any other scene with the very scary looking Hound. It isn't all creepy though. There is a very charming ad libbing moment between Holmes and Watson, that was really nice to see.And the acting was great, especially Jeremy Brett as Holmes. Despite the fact that he was ill during production, he still gave a stellar turn as always in the role I remember him by most. Brett was a great actor, and it was a real shame when he died; I will always consider him as the definitive Holmes, with his gritty baritone and towering presence Brett was perfect as Holmes. Edward Hardwicke as Dr Watson is a really nice contrast, and their chemistry is evident here. The supporting performances were sterling, worth of note were James Faulkener and Ronald Pickup.All in all, while not as good as Sign of Four, it was a very atmospheric and faithful adaptation. 9/10 Bethany Cox