Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Paul Evans Made way back in 1939, since then many incarnations of the great detective have taken on the famous hound and won. I can't say I find this the quintessential version, but it does have many favourable qualities, the actual hound itself brings true fear, the scenes involving it with Sir Henry are incredibly realistic, and even now look very effective. There is a great sense of atmosphere, the moors look decidedly spooky. The performances all round are very good from the supporting cast, Lionel Atwill and Richard Greene I thought were particularly good in their respective roles. Rathbone's 'goods pedlar' is a treat to behold, the master of disguise at work! The fashions look great too, they managed to capture the Victorian era beautifully.I understand that for a few plot changes are unforgivable, but I can understand why, and on occasion changes can help, for pacing, timescale etc. Rathbone and Bruce combined wonderfully well in this earlier outing, they seemingly had an easy working relationship, it all looks so easy. The Universal movies would became bolder and more dramatic, with greater fiddling to the plot lines.A quality suspense mystery 8/10

binapiraeus "The Hound of the Baskervilles", arguably the most famous of all of Sherlock Holmes' cases, was filmed in 1939 - not for the first time, of course (there had already been at least five tries, most notably in 1932 with Robert Rendel), but probably in the most impressive way possible. And it was the first time that Basil Rathbone portrayed the world-famous sleuth from Baker Street - the beginning of a very successful, and very high-class film serial produced by 20th Century-Fox that would comprise all in all 15 movies over the next eight years.And Rathbone certainly was an ideal choice for the role, both physically and regarding his (on-screen) image: very British, and slightly haughty, but still with a sense of humor - only most of the time at the expense of his friend and assistant, amiable Dr. Watson, who was wonderfully played by Nigel Bruce. In fact, many Sherlock Holmes fans regard Rathbone as THE personification of Holmes (only we mustn't forget Arthur Wontner, who had also played Holmes in five movies, and was at LEAST as close to Conan Doyle's original character, if not even a little bit more...).Actually, the whole cast is superb: idyllically handsome young Richard Greene as Sir Henry Baskerville, the heir of the huge estate of the Baskervilles, whose father has died under mysterious circumstances in the moor recently, Lionel Atwill as the strange Dr. Mortimer, Wendy Barrie as beautiful Beryl, Morton Lowry as her young step-brother... And no less superb is the direction: foggy Dartmoor probably had never been photographed in such a uniquely creepy way before, providing a perfect background for the murderous ongoings that revolve around the old legend of a horrible hound that scares or bites people to death... But Sherlock Holmes, of course, has got another, much more reasonable theory! The whole film is immensely suspenseful (with England around 1900 being marvelously recreated in every detail), but especially the dramatic climax in the end is REALLY made for strong nerves - a real, thrilling, classic MUST for every fan of the crime genre!

lagudafuad Basil Rathbone portrayal of the great detective Sherlock Holmes is one of the most popular and this adaptation of the popular The Hound of the Baskervilles is the nearest in accuracy that I have seen of the book, recurring that I have seen the modern British Sherlock series do a version of the Hound of Baskerville, which digressed a lot to the use of drugs to portray the intensity of the hound's presence.Many differences can be seen when watching this movie adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's, Sherlock Holmes's The Hound of the Baskervilles, from the role of Beryl Stapleton (she is portrayed here by Wendy Barrie), to some other screenplay differences. That being said, this 1939 movie is one that is straight to the heart captivating, it starts with a high note, introducing us to the characters and the case at hand, it then goes smoothly down to the case and how Holmes was intending to solve it, adding the suspense that the book had, as we the viewers as well as Dr Watson (Nigel Bruce) has to wait till Holmes tells us what he has been able to deduce.Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. John Watson (Nigel Bruce) receive a visit from Dr. Mortimer (Lionel Atwill), who wishes to consult them before the arrival of Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene). Sir Henry is the last of the Baskervilles and heir to the Baskerville estate in Devonshire.But Dr. Mortimer tells Holmes of a legend, the legend of the Hound of the Baskervilles, a demonic dog that first killed Sir Hugo Baskerville hundreds of years ago and the same dog is believed to kill all Baskervilles that stay in the Devonshire, in which Sir Henry will lodge.The screenplay of any book adaptation is one that needs to be judged carefully, even after reading such a book, you still have to have it in the back of your mind that not all that is written can or should be adapted on screen, in such a case the screenplay has to be well glued together not making you feel like something is off. The 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles has such a screenplay that makes you not feel lost, they did their best to tie up loose ends and make you the view feel a sense of closing as the movie itself ends.Not many of the Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes portrayal can be found in the market, but if you do search the online market hard you should be able to come across some at a good price although some are said to be on the public domain; as I to will continue the search to see if I can see all fourteen of the duo of Basil Rathbone and Niguel Bruce.www.lagsreviews.com

jonfrum2000 I'm a huge Holmes fan, having read all the stories decades ago, seen this movie, watched the Jeremey Brett series multiple times and listened to every radio episode available, whether part of the canon or pastiche. It's been years since i watched this version, and i looked forward to it when I saw it available on youtube. Unfotunately, I was quite disappointed.I'm actually in favor of dramatizations being changed somewhat from their literary sources, but in this case I can't think of a single change that was neutral, much less an improvement. The change of the Barrymores to Barryman was silly - the most famous story from probably the English speaking world's most famous character is already locked in our minds. To change a character's name - for any reason - just serves to take us out of the suspension of disbelief. The role of the Barrymores to Selden is a fundamental part of the story - minimizing it took away from the drama.Apparently, Hollywood didn't think audiences could deal with Beryl Stapleton having any part whatsoever in the plot, so she's no longer the wife. And Sir Henry asking her to marry him after we've seen them meet just once again follows an unfortunate Hollywood convention and destroys the suspension of disbelief.And of course how it was that Stapleton lived in the district all his life and no one knew he was related to the Baskervilles is one of those jarring puzzles that Hollywood would typically drop on people just before the film ended and the lights went on. It works until they get outside and start thinking about it.Nigel Bruce certainly wasn't the bumbling clown he later played in this series, but he's no Watson if you've read the stories. As likable as he was in this role, he was never asked to play Watson and he never did. Bruce was more Jimmie Chan than Dr Watson.At least this was better than the later Hammer version, which went even further re-writing the story. It was a failure at the box office, with good reason.