Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

walsh-campbell I think we would have had the best "Hound" ever if Granada had invested enough money in this Jeremy Brett/Edward Hardwick production. As it is, it is a very good production, but it could have been a truly great one.This production has so much going for it—of course, starting with the best Holmes and Watson ever—Brett and Hardwicke.Kristoffer Tabori is wonderful as Sir Henry Baskerville—just about the best I've ever seen. He really conveys Sir Henry's youthfulness. You easily believe that he has grown up in Canada and is a bit of a "fish out of water" in England. Plus he totally looks the part.Alastair Duncan is also wonderful as Dr. Mortimer. Mortimer is usually portrayed as just the standard cardboard cutout of the older stiff- upper-lip British professional man. It is such a breath of fresh air to have this character portrayed as younger and much closer to the way he is described in the original story.However, Fiona Gillies isn't so successful as Beryl Stapleton. This is a pivotal character and the weakness of this performance undermines the overall success of the production. They could and should have paid for an A-list actress for this part.They could and should have shot and edited the whole sequence concerning the death of Sir Charles far better—in such a way as to really evoke his terror and to convey his belief in the supernatural character of the hound. After all, this scene sets up the entire framework for the story, as well as its mood.Better special effects would have greatly improved the depiction of the attack of the hound on Sir Henry.Just imagine if this production had had the budget of a first rate feature film—and all the additional resources and talents that would have made available. It could have been the definitive "Hound."

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

james_oblivion Though some may find Holmes's long stretches of absence disappointing in this adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles (the most celebrated of all Conan Doyle tales), it should be understood that these absences are in keeping with the original novel. Watson does much of the footwork here, and is separated from Holmes for most of the story. And since Watson was the man who penned the memoirs, he recorded his own experiences. When he was away from Holmes, he could not divine what Holmes was doing, and would only record Holmes's own account of his actions during their separation once they'd been reunited. So, in this respect, this version remains more faithful to the original story than any other. There is, after all, tremendous pressure to pack as much Sherlock Holmes as one can into what is ostensibly a Sherlock Holmes film. It takes guts to keep him out of the picture for as long as this adaptation does...but this adaptation shows its courage in staying true to the text, even if it means leaving Sherlock Holmes out of it, for the most part. Really, this was the only one of the Granada feature films that could have been made at this time, as Jeremy Brett was (quite noticeably) ill and could not have taken part in a two hour film in which Holmes was on the main stage...the strain would have been too much. As always, Brett's Holmes (when he's around) is a remarkable performance, and Hardwicke's Watson proves yet again why he was a more-than-suitable replacement for David Burke. Overall, a fine adaptation of Sherlock Holmes's most famous adventure. This and, to a lesser extent, the 1983 television version with Ian Richardson are, to my mind, the definitive Hounds.

Paul Andrews The Hound of the Baskervilles starts late one night at 'Baskerville Hall' as Sir Charles Baskerville (Raymond Adamson) waits outside in his gardens, suddenly he hears a chilling howl coming from the moors... Dr. Mortimer (Neil Duncan) contacts contacts Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett) & his assistant Dr. John Watson (Edward Hardwicke) & tells them of Sir Charles untimely death which he feels is suspicious, he talks about a 200 year old legend about a huge demonic hound that has terrorised the Baskerville family & that paw prints were found near Sir Charles body. Dr. Mortimer also says that the last remaining Baskerville Sir Henry (Kristoffer Tabori) is travelling from America to claim his inheritance. Upon arrival Sir Henry receives a threatening letter telling him to stay away from Baskerville Hall which he ignores & together with Dr. Watson & Dr. Mortimer travels to Devon & settle into Baskerville Hall. The list of suspects is long with the servants Mr. (Ronald Pickup) & Mrs. Barrymore (Rosemary McHale) acting strangely & the escaped murderer Selden (William Ilkley) running around the moors...Made for British TV by Granada & directed by Brian Mills this adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles is the second version of this classic tale I have seen this year & both were almost exactly the same. The script by T.R. Bowen based on the novel by Arthur Conan Doyle retains all the basic story elements, it moves along at a nice pace & is involving although if you know anything about the well told tale then nothing here will come as a surprise which isn't a problem with this version in itself it's just that there are so many versions around which I would imagine don't differ that much. Holmes takes a back seat for a large chunk of the film & I thought the ending was somewhat underwhelming & felt a little rushed which was probably down to it's budget & tight TV shooting schedule. The film was obviously shot on location & you couldn't ask for more of the British countryside & the manor house used. The budget probably wasn't as high as the other one I saw as it looks a little basic at times, there is no extravagant production design & everything is kept quite simple yet still maintains it's effectiveness. The Hound itself has a silly green glowing special effect to it & isn't really in the film that much. The acting is strong throughout but I'm not sure about Brett as Holmes, don't really know why but I didn't like him that much. Overall it's a good solid engaging adaptation of what now must surely be a story told far too often as once you've seen one of them there isn't much interest in seeing any other. If you have never seen a Hound of the Baskervilles before than I can easily recommend this one but if you have I can't see the point in sitting through this. Good for Holmes virgins & completest's but old hat if your familiar with the story.