CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Leofwine_draca This great-looking British TV movie has an impressive cast list and probably the most authentic-looking moors seen in a HOUND adaptation, but otherwise is unexpectedly flat and dull in tone. My main question has to be: why bother remaking a story which has already been told - sometimes excellently - so many times before? The only reason would be to take the story in interesting, different directions, but this mainly sticks to the book and plods along to an unimpressive conclusion.While the costumes, sets, music, and scenery are fine, the rather surprisingly bland direction by Douglas Hickox (THEATRE OF BLOOD) serves to diminish the interest of many moments, only picking up occasionally for a spot of action. The casting is fine but nobody really excels in their role, or alternatively sticks in the memory. Ian Richardson physically looks the part of Holmes, yet while his acting methods are fine, he displays little of Rathbone's natural charisma. Donald Churchill is a worthy successor to Nigel Bruce's Watson, at least, but Martin Shaw looks uncomfortably out-of-place as the American Sir Henry, complete with a dodgy accent and '80s hairdo. It's not the actor you would imagine in the role at all. Elsewhere, there are solid turns from Denholm Elliott (as a nervy - what else? - doctor), Brian Blessed (in big, burly, bearded and barmy persona), Connie Booth (wife of John Cleese and star of FAWLTY TOWERS) and Glynis Barber, which help lend authenticity to the proceedings. Old faces Edward Judd and Ronald Lacey also contribute nice minor roles as a butler and Inspector Lestrade respectively.Although only a television movie, the budget seems to have been rather high for this film, so forget any dry-ice enshrouded set-bound moors of previous versions. Here, it's the real thing, and shots of the isolated expanses of moorland help to create an appropriate atmosphere. Sadly the silly-looking scenes of a dog with a glowing outline rapidly dispel any atmosphere that may have been built up, although some night-time shenanigans and murders help to make up for this. THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is fine enough in itself, but for fans who've already seen Universal's 1939 version or Hammer's 1959 adaptation, the question is... why bother? A well-made but slow-paced and unexciting tale.

nickgodfrey I've seen a few versions of probably Holmes' most famous case, and this one holds up pretty well. Firstly, Ian Richardson as Holmes: he is a different Holmes to Conan Doyle's cold, aloof deduction machine. This Holmes is a lively, happy Holmes and I can't really get on with this portrayal. Richardson is a fine actor but I much prefer Jeremy Brett, Peter Cushing and Basil Rathbone. Next up we have Donald Churchill as Doctor Watson giving possibly the worst performance of all the Watson's. It's certainly the worst performance in the film. Churchill gives a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling performance, in the Nigel Bruce vein but with none of the charm. Bruce and David Burke were far better Watson's. Martin Shaw, TV's Ray Doyle from The Professionals turns up as American Sir Henry Baskerville and he turns in an average performance, mainly due to the fact his whole voice was dubbed (by Eric Roberts, Julia's brother). No idea why this was done. Maybe Shaw's accent wasn't up to scratch but it certainly detracts from his performance. Trusty Brit stalwarts Denholm Eliot (miscast as Dr Mortimer- Mortimer was in his 30's in the novel), Brian Blessed shouting and hollering as Geoffrey Lyons (a character only mentioned by name in the book) and Ronald Lacey as Lestrade all provide good support. Nicholas Clay does a nice turn as the devious Stapleton but Glynis Barber as Beryl Stapleton is appalling. She seems to come from the quivering lip school of acting. The production in this version is particularly good. Impressive photography of the brooding moor and Baskerville Hall plus Douglas Hickox's confident direction are big plus points. Forget the dodgy sets of Baker Street at the beginning and some obvious studio sets of the moor towards the end. Bit of a cop out ending with Sir Henry and Beryl which is different to the book. All in all a pretty good attempt at a classic, not the best but certainly not the worst.

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

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.