commander_zero The Hound of the Baskervilles is, of course, the Sherlock Holmes mystery where Holmes goes undercover for the whole middle part. He is always lurking just offstage, but in this 1983 production we especially miss, for an awful lot of the film, the marvelous voice and presence of Ian Richardson. If like me, you tracked down this mystery solely to get more of the virtuoso Richardson, whose acting highlighted the BBC House of Cards trilogy, this gap will disappoint you, although we are compensated by the great Denholm Elliott as the country doctor who comes to Baker Street to fetch Holmes. These are the acting highlights: Martin Shaw as the young American Baskerville heir seems to be thrusting his way through on sheer goodwill--he is likable enough that you wish that for his own sake, Sir Henry would heed the many warning signs, head back to London and take acting lessons. Meanwhile, stuck in small parts as the mansion's head servants are Eleanor Bron and Edward Judd --now there's a pair who could have made a great Holmes and Watson on their own. There is just enough good stuff here to carry you through—cinematographer Ronnie Taylor makes the scenes on the open moors in daytime epic in scope, and the night scenes amid the boggy, fog-shrouded moraine around the remote mansion are often scary. In the grand climax, a chase by black silhouettes against bottomless fog is staged and filmed with great skill. On the other hand, too often this "Hound" offers the standard Masterpiece Theatre stuff of lamplit Victorian parlours, tame-looking city streets and city folk hobnobbing with the rustic locals, and seems pretty generic considering the acting and storytelling talents elsewhere on display.

TheLittleSongbird The Hound of the Baskervilles is certainly one of the more popular Sherlock Holmes stories and with good reason, it is an excellent story. Out of all the adaptations while not the best(the Rathbone, Cushing and Brett versions were marginally better), lacking the freshness of the aforementioned versions, this version is very solid and entertaining. I remarked in my review for the Cushing film it was decent but actually it is better than decent it is very good more like. There is a suitably creepy atmosphere, and it respects the book in terms of story and scripting. Plus the production values are excellent and the music haunting. The acting is great, Ian Richardson is the best of the lot, and I found his Holmes interesting. Whereas Brett and Rathbone were grittier and more sophisticated, Richardson goes for a more sly and sardonic approach and it worked. Donald Churchill is an admirable Dr Watson, and Martin Shaw is remarkable as Sir Henry. I also liked Brian Blessed here too and Ronald Lacey(the Sholto brothers in the Brett version of Sign of Four) was entertaining as Lestrade. Overall, solid and entertaining, the best? Perhaps not. But I think I underestimated it slightly initially, for it is very good and better I think than Richardson's version of Sign of Four(though that was good). 8/10 Bethany Cox

boomcoach This film obviously takes its casting from the portrayals of Holmes and Watson by Rathbone and Bruce, rather than from the book. Richardson is smarmy, jovial and cheery, with none of Rathbone's cold precision and sharpness. Churchill is more idiotic as Watson than even Nigel Bruce could manage. An insipid and clueless Inspector LeStrade is added for no other reason, apparently, than the writer's feeling that a Holmes story needed him.The sets looked good. Some of the additional characters are quite well done (with the exception of the butler and his wife, who sleepwalk through their lines.)This film pales next to almost any of the other film adaptations of Hound. The best is the Rathbone/Bruce version. The Hammer films version gives us Peter Cushing as an excellent Holmes surrounded by those lovely Hammer sets.The 1988 Jeremy Brett TV film suffers from being filmed on a TV budget, but gives us what is probably the most faithful rendition of Holmes and Watson, with Watson coming off as Holmes' strong right hand, rather than as a buffoon. Watch any and/or all of these, but only watch this version if you have run out of other versions to watch.

Eegah Guy Besides the Hammer version of 1959 (or even MURDER BY DECREE about Jack the Ripper) this is one of the more scarier Holmes movies ever made. Fog-shrouded moors and spectral killer dogs mix with the usual detective suspense to make this way better than most movies that are made for television.