Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Walter Sloane Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Hitchcoc Of all the Hound renditions, this one is probably the most precise, and yet it still has to play with Conan-Doyle's wonderful plot. Most of the plot elements are in place, but they had to misuse characters such as Laura Lyons and create an abusive husband, an artist living in the area. Also, they couldn't resist the sappy ending, with Sir Henry and Beryl immediately joining hands. The other issue that I take with virtually every incarnation of this epic is he treatment of Watson. Remember, he is a wise enough soul to write the exploits of Holmes for publication. Once again, he's portrayed as a bit of a buffoon. Let's blame Nigel Bruce for that, one of the worst of the Watsons (though the one first thought of when we look back on our viewing). The two men who portrayed him in the Jeremy Brett episodes captured him so much better. The acting here is OK. Richardson does a pretty good job with the great sleuth. Henry is dull and uninteresting. Stapleton was surprisingly good. Someday, someone will trust the story--unfortunately, I may not live that long.

Michael_Elliott Hound of the Baskervilles, The (1983) *** (out of 4) Made-for-TV version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic novel has Ian Richardson playing Holmes, Donald Churchill as Watson, Denholm Elliott as Dr. Mortimer and Martin Shaw as Henry Baskerville. I believe this here was my fifth version that I've seen of this novel and I plan on going through all of them for no better reason than to just be a completest. I was bit nervous going into this one but it turned out to be one of the more impressive ones and with a little editing it might have turned out to be the best. From what I've read from Holmes experts, this novel has never been told in a great fashion so perhaps someone in the future will do it justice. This here tries and comes close but a few things needed to be dropped or changed. One thing that should have been changed was the green tint around the murderous dog. There are a couple good shots of people being hunted by the dog yet all atmosphere and tension are lost when you see the green tint around the beast. Another thing that could have been changed was the actual running time as 101-minutes was just a bit too much here. Both Richardson and Churchill are good in their roles but I do wonder if the director sat them down to watch the Rathbone/Bruce entries because there are a few times where it seems like the actors are trying to impersonate the previous masters. With that said, I found both to be entertaining in their roles with Richardson really standing out and making an intelligent Holmes. It's always important that whoever is playing Holmes come off as intelligent and Richardson certainly does that here and he makes the story fun to go through no matter how many times you've seen it. I also enjoyed Elliott in the role of Mortimer and Edward Judd is good as Barrymore. I wasn't too impressed with Shaw as he comes off too much like a Texas redneck. Director Hickox does a very good job at building up tension and making a thick atmosphere, which are two important factors to this story. Another major plus is that we have a few new sequences including a clip of Mortimer telling how the Baskerville's became cursed and an alternate take on the murder attempt of Henry. Both sequences are quite good and add to the film.

Thunderdodger Without doubt the best incarnation of this often repeated Sherlock Holmes story. Later versions don't come close to this one. Very well filmed, dark & suspenseful with well chosen locations & well thought out set pieces, particularly the hound chases & the final showdown in the mire. Sets are very well designed & filmed for a picture of this era, real effort has gone into this part of it - it actually looks like the outdoor scenes are really outdoors!Ian Richardson excels as Holmes & Martin Shaw is an excellent Henry Baskerville. The supporting roles are also very well cast, with an excellent British line up of players, Denholm Elliot making a fine Dr. Mortimer & Brian Blessed a memorable Geoffrey Lyons.I would also recommend watching "The Sign of Four", which was made around the same time with Ian Richardson again playing Holmes. Shame that "Study in Scarlet" & "Valley of Fear" were not made as part of the same series.

ChrisHawk78 It really is a disaster that only SIGN and HOUN were filmed with Ian Richardson. No other has been portraying Holmes in such a smooth and witty way - not even Rathbone whom I always considered a bit too perfect and too cold. The setting is a worthy one and the costumes in the Hound of the Baskervilles just as in Sign of the Four are brilliant and the acting of all the characters is quite convincing. Unfortunately Watson is a shade too Brucian. I think it is a pity that some characters like Arthur Frankland were left out in the film and the situation of the latter's daughter, Mrs Lyons (beautifully portrayed by Connie Booth of `Fawlty Towers' fame) was changed. Yet the addition of the character Geoffrey Lyons is of interest. Brian Blessed gives his wife a real hard time and a spot of trouble to Holmes and Lestrade. Denholm Elliot is a nice choice as Mortimer as are Shaw and Clay in their roles. The telling of the legend in the beginning is excellently done, by the way and leaves nothing to wish for. 9 out of 10.