Customer Reviews

Sherlock Holmes - The Hound of the Baskervilles

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

With the exception of the cheesy merry-go-round dog attack at the beginning of this TV movie, this version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is superb. Ian Richardson plays Holmes with a flair that matches the great Jeremy Brett. It's a shame that Richardson's Holmes is only captured in one other occasion on film. ("The Sign of Four")

In contrast, it's also a shame that "Hound" is probably the most screen adapted literary work ever (there are at least 10 films) but there is no perfect definitive version. This is probably as close as we're going to get. This film, made in 1983, far outshines the 2000 BBC version with its horrid CGI dog and a Watson who is likely computer generated as well. Fans of the Jeremy Brett film may be surprised at the stellar cast of this one, featuring Denholm Elliott ("Raiders of the Lost Ark"), Eleanor Bron ("The House of Mirth"), Connie Booth ("Monty Python"), and noted actor Brian Blessed (you'll know him when you see him if you don't already). The film also features Ronald Lacey as probably the best Inspector Lestrade ever. (Lacey was also in "Raiders" and the Jeremy Brett version of "The Sign of Four".) Martin Shaw's spin as the Texan Sir Henry Baskerville surprisingly turns out to be more pleasant than not.

At times the film is on the gritty side. The scene with Sir Hugo chasing his servant's daughter for that evening's recreational rape is darker than one would expect, but precisely where it needs to be cinematically. When you consider realism, this "Hound" is unequalled.

Fans of Ian Richardson should also check him out in "Murder Rooms", a BBC series where he plays Dr. Joseph Bell - a real Victorian doctor universally recognized as Arthur Conan Doyle's inspiration for the Sherlock Holmes character.

This 1983 version of the Hound, with Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes, has rarely received the accolades it so richly deserves. While not the most faithful adaptation of the Conan Doyle classic, it is nevertheless sumptuously atmospheric. It features a truly menacing hound that more closely approximates the horror elicited by the novel's original than the veritable slew of disappointing hounds from several other film versions, the obvious exception being the equally terrifying Basil Rathbone hound. This TV movie's strengths stem from a variety of sources. First of all, Michael Lewis's engaging, memorable film score is exquisitely dynamic and resonates with excitement. Secondly, the production's choice of authentic Devonshire locales for outdoor filming, and effective use of sound stages to evoke the melancholy and dreary mystique of the moors at nighttime,imbues this stylish version with an appropriately gothic flavor. It stunningly depicts the eerie essence of the Grimpen Mire, replete with its miasma of swirling, amorphous ground mist, and compellingly involves the viewer in the visual ambience of its surroundings. The film's denouement, as Holmes pursues his villainous quarry through the mire's impenetrable sea of fog, is masterfully photographed and provides a highly dramatic and satisfying catharsis to an enjoyable film.
This is not to discount the film's few shortcomings. Certainly Richardson's Holmes, invariably prone to overtly amiable behavior, deviates from the disconcerting arrogance and brooding demeanor so brilliantly and faithfully rendered by Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett. This is not to negate Richardson's charismatic and magnetic presence, however, and he is a pleasure to watch. (Recently, he compellingly played Dr. Joseph Bell, the real-life inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, in an equally atmospheric mystery series broadcast on Public Television). However, his Holmes portrayal remains somewhat revisionist. Furthermore, Donald Churchill's slightly bumbling rendition of Dr. Watson is too much of a frustrating throwback to Nigel Bruce's comedic and dim-witted depiction of the much maligned-doctor in the classic Basil Rathbone films of the 1940s. As Watson's character, for once, takes center stage in the Hound, casting for this role is more imperatively crucial than for Holmes. Among the most convincing and enjoyable Watsons from productions past included the more cerebral Andre Morell from the 1959 Hammer film and the equally astute and somber Edward Hardwicke from the 1987 Jeremy Brett version. However, that said, this stylish production deserves unstinting praise for the masterful way in which it skillfully reproduces the macabre spirit of the classic novel.

This is certainly the best version of this classic tale that I've seen. Ian Richardson is superb as Holmes and the other characters are well-acted and believable. There is also some hauntingly good dialogue and an unforgettable soundtrack which adds to the wonderful atmosphere.

This version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic story featuring Sherlock Holmes offers a fun and solid take on the tale of the Great Detective and his investigation of a deadly family curse. Wonderfully photographed, the film makes great use of the dark settings of the moor. Ian Richardson leads the pack with a sly, puckish take on Sherlock Holmes. It is a wonderful performance that makes one wish that he had filmed more Holmes stories then he did. Denholm Elliott has his amusing moments as the local doctor with a case of absent-mindedness. Unfortunately, the actor playing the faithful Dr. Watson, seems to be too much the Cockney with his gravelly voice. It's frustrating since his character spends much of the time onscreen, while Holmes is offscreen thoughout the middle part of the film. Brian Blessed and Connie Booth (formerly married to John Cleese, and a sometime performer with Monty Python), do well in smaller roles. A decent film, but not the definitive version.

I still like the Rathbone/Bruce version best, but this one is right behind it. Print is of good quality, and Richardson is great as Holmes. Highly recommended!

Yes, this is clearly the finest 'Hound' available -- I've seen them all many times. I first viewed this movie on either HBO or Cinemax back in the early 80s and had searched for a copy ever since. I finally got my hands on the DVD last year and now I watch it over and over. Even my brother, a certified Rathbone purist who won't watch the late, great Jeremy Brett for a moment, loves this one.

For the uninitiated, the story is about an old family curse, originally perpetuated upon one very evil Sir Hugo Baskerville, who was ultimately slaughtered on the moor by a gigantic hound with glowing eyes. Subsequent to that day, the Baskervilles had always feared the moor where the legendary hound roamed at will, lusting for more Baskerville blood. When Sir Charles Baskerville, the most recent Laird of the Manor, appears to have died as a result of an encounter with the hound, Sherlock Holmes is called in by a family friend (Dr. Mortimer), in an effort to protect the young American heir to the estate, Sir Henry Baskerville.

After being shot at in London (saved by Holmes' quick action!) and otherwise warned to stay clear of the estate, Sir Henry boldly takes on the implied challenge and heads for the moor, but only Watson can go along to protect him because Holmes is otherwise occupied with another important case.

Watson and Sir Henry have some close calls and there is the secondary danger of an escaped heinous convict loosed upon the moor. A nasty, vengeful artist, a dour pair of domestic servants, and a decrepit old gypsy all serve to add to the the film's more suspenseful moments.

Holmes has to depend on Watson to keep him abreast of the situation with daily letters in order to solve the case of the elusive and dangerous hound. Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard is also on the scene, but his job is mainly to capture the convict and he's loath to have run across Watson, (a competitor for crime-solving glory), and potentially also into The Great Detective himself, in this isolated spot of moor-country.

There is additionally the love-at-first-sight sub-plot between Sir Henry and the reticent, but beautiful, sister of the local naturalist, the latter being an enigmatic character who collects butterflies and who lords over his adult sister, all with equal zeal.

Now, for a critique of the film, Holmes and Watson are spot-on, very convincing. This is about the only Sherlock Holmes flick where the great detective is not portrayed as a borderline nutcase. Earlier and subsequent producers-directors have seemed to focus heavily upon Holmes' eccentricities and anti-social tendencies, but not here. He's very straightforward and we're even surprised by his moments of genius, (that we somehow knew was there all the time), a nice caveat. The cast of principals is all British, of course, (young Sir Henry appears to be an American, but this is simply more superb acting), so there are no gaffs in that realm. All the suspect-characters are as notably ominous as is this great version of the Grimpen Mire itself.

That leads me into the issue of the cinematography which is the very best feature of this film -- it will knock you out. It's superb! The color saturation is outstanding and the camera angles are just incredible. The sets are joyfully reminiscent of the great 60s color Cushing-Lee Hammer Films, only much better.

The atmosphere generated in this movie cannot be matched elsewhere and is effectively boosted by a subtle but appropriate filmscore, which is very nice but does not at all distract the viewer from the film itself. The character action keeps one on his or her toes and there's no drag to this film, a fact which cannot be stated in regard to certain other 'Hound' versions.

Yes, the story-line deviates slightly from Doyle's original manuscript but what movie director does not utilize this artistic license? Certainly, other 'Hound' versions have done so, many much moreso than this one. I feel certain that Doyle himself would have highly approved of this brilliant manifestation of his classic tale.

Some concern has been expressed about the brief rape scene (Sir Hugo catches up with his wench on the moor but, there, encounters The Hound which promptly squares the evil deed), but I feel that it was as tastefully conveyed as a rape scene can be portrayed. After all, Sir Hugo's evil has to be nailed down in a hurry so that The Curse can be legitimized to the viewers. In the end, this scene contributes notably to the credibility of the film but does, in fact, limit the viewing audience, at least for that brief segment.

In summary, if you could only afford one copy of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', this would clearly be the version to acquire.

See my Listmania lists for other recommendations.

Without doubt, this is by far the finest screen version of Conan Doyle's famous story I have (so far) seen. Ian Richardson (who will no doubt be familiar to fans of House of Cards and To Play the King) is perfect as Holmes. The film boasts just the right cast (whether central characters or bit parts, they all give strong performances), the moor's thin line between beauty and deadly is just right, the soundtrack is unforgettable, there is myriad memorable dialogue and the whole thing flows very well. There is not a dull moment. Recommended to fans of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle or just horror in general.

Douglas Hickox is among the few directors who have understood the mystic horror of Doyle's terrifying masterpiece. Directing a brilliant Nicholas Clay, Hickox presents the audience with the best film version of the story to date: 4 stars.

The movie was well put together, and thought out. I really liked it and they did stick fairly close to the story, but they did change a few things, and I'm not sure it was for the best. I did like it that they had the Hound and Holmes fight (that did not happen in the movie) but I didn't like it that Mrs. Lions was murdered (that didn't happen either). All in all, I'd give it four out of five stars. The acting was supurb, and I got chills just listening to the sound of the Hound . . .

The tale of The Hound of the Baskervilles has such sturdy bones that it's probably the most filmed of the Great Detective's cases. Let's see...I've watched at one time or another Richard Roxburgh, Peter Cushing, Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Peter Cook, Matt Frewer and Ian Richardson play Holmes as he pursues the solution to this monstrous plot. One or two I've enjoyed less than the others. One was really grim; an attempt at comedy that had many things but humor, unless you find uproarious a chihuahua with the bladder the size of a bull mastiff's urinating on a person's foot.

With this version, Ian Richardson plays Holmes, Donald Churchill plays Watson, Martin Shaw plays Sir Henry Baskerville and Denholm Elliot plays Dr. Mortimer. Grimpen Mire continues to play Grimpen Mire, and that dark, fog-swept Dartmoor bog is not a place you'd want to venture into, even if a slavering hound weren't bounding after you.

Just to restate the plot: Sherlock Holmes and his friend Dr. John Watson are visited in their rooms at 221B Baker street by Dr. Mortimer. Mortimer tells Holmes the story of the Baskervilles and the curse that was laid upon them. Mortimer's best friend, Sir Charles Baskerville, has died under suspicious circumstances. Now the heir, Henry Baskerville, is arriving from Canada. Mortimer believes Sir Henry is at risk and pleads for Holmes to intervene. Holmes says he cannot leave London for a few days, but agrees to meet Sir Henry. Homes then agrees there are unusual aspects to the case and has Watson accompany Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall. Watson is to report back by mail until Holmes can arrive. And now we enter the world of swirling fog, of nights without moonlight, of swamps that can suck an unwary man under, of servants who seem too silent, and of neighbors...a brother and sister who live near by. Then there is the unnerving howling of a great beast to be heard late at night.

Richardson gives us a Holmes who smiles a little more than we're used to. He's just as analytic and perceptive, but seems more understanding of human foibles that, say, Rathbone's or Brett's versions. Because the story is so inherently dramatic, however, as long as the actors are accomplished the issue of who's a better Holmes isn't all that important. It's not a zero-sum game, where if you prefer Rathbone, for instance, then automatically Brett must be diminished. While I might prefer one over the other, I think Richardson, Brett, Rathbone and Cushing all give satisfying performances and I enjoy each of them.

This version, like the others, has first-rate production values and solid acting. The one thing that bothers me is that Donald Churchill as Watson comes perilously close to the Nigel Bruce School of Acting. Churchill doesn't make Watson the elderly buffoon that Bruce turned Watson into, but he makes Watson far more obtuse than necessary to help the story.

Since there was a rapacious Baskerville ancestor, since there were suspicious deaths, since there was a great hound, and since there was an unscrupulous murderer, I don't think I'm giving anything away by quoting Dr. Watson's last line in the movie. "The curse of the Baskervilles," he says to Holmes, with a shake of his head, "...a figment of the imagination." Or Holmes' last line. "Without the imagination," he says with a smile to Watson, "there would be no horror."

The DVD looks fine. There are no extras.