User reviews

Prior to the 1988 adaptation from Granada Television, I would say that this was the best adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. It stays close to the source for the most part...but most of the changes it makes are needless ones, which is somewhat puzzling. Why omit Arthur Frankland? Why introduce Lyons, when he clearly has little function in the story? Some of the changes do actually work, however...including the bit with the gypsy. And in total, this Hound is entertaining and certainly has its moments.

Ian Richardson is a fine Holmes, even if he seems a bit too good-natured. Perhaps this was a throwback to the old Basil Rathbone Holmes persona...and it works in this context. Richardson is hardly the moody Holmes of Arthur Conan Doyle...but definitely fun to watch. Unfortunately, Donald Churchill is not one of the great screen Watsons. He is a definite step down from his immediate predecessor, David Healy, who portrayed the good Doctor opposite Richardson in The Sign of Four. As the films were produced in the same year, by the same producer, one must wonder why Healy did not reprise the role for Hound. Instead, we are presented with a rather too blustery Watson, almost reminiscent of Nigel Bruce, though not nearly as appealing. Churchill looks the part, but not much else.

Ron Lacey is a treat to watch, as always...this time, playing it straighter than usual in his role as Inspector Lestrade, whose participation is greatly enhanced in this adaptation, for he appeared in the novel merely as a minor supporting character, showing up toward the end. Here, he is on the scene quite early, though behaving in an uncharacteristically antagonistic fashion. Ron Lacey would, of course, show up in another Holmes adventure before too long...appearing as both Thaddeus and Bartholomew Sholto in the 1986 Granada adaptation of The Sign of Four.

All things considered, this is a good adaptation. It is simply not the best. That honor goes to Granada's production. Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes was the very essence of the literary character and very little of the novel was changed for the sake of that particular adaptation. This production runs a distant second...though prior to Granada's Hound, this one was easily the best of the bunch. It may, in fact, simply be a matter of individual taste. Neither film can be considered bad, by any stretch of the imagination. The preference, I suppose, depends solely on what one may be looking for in a Hound adaptation. I suggest seeing both this and the 1988 Granada production, and making up your own mind.

Quite a solid rendition of the quintessential Sherlock Holmes case as TV movies go, though clearly still not a patch on either the 1939 Fox or 1959 Hammer big-screen versions. I liked Ian Richardson better here than in the same year's THE SIGN OF FOUR – perhaps because his tendency to go over-the-top gets channeled this time around through Holmes' own penchant for disguise! Even the rapport with Dr. Watson (a different actor from his subsequent effort) seems to be more congenial – if still basically a comic foil a' la Nigel Bruce. Again, the rest of the cast list is peppered with established performers: Martin Shaw (amusingly decked-out in Texan attire!), Nicholas Clay (in the proverbial dual role at the core of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic tale), Denholm Elliott (playing a different role to the one he had had in the 1978 spoof), Ronald Lacey (as Inspector Lestrade), Brian Blessed (though his gruffness borders on caricature!), Connie Booth (Mrs. John Cleese!), Edward Judd (nearly unrecognizable) and Eleanor Bron. The titular creature, too, with its constantly radiant eyes and at, one point, his entire frame appears to glow, was presumably envisaged as the typical movie monster (let us not forget there were at least two 'hell hound' movies some years previously – one of which I should be checking out soon, incidentally – while the Stephen King adaptation CUJO was released the same year). That said, director Hickox was well-versed in this sort of thing, and he handles proceedings with customary professionalism (albeit, understandably, on a small scale). This is now the seventh version of the tale that I have watched – 1939, 1959, 1968, 1972, 1978 and 2002 – and, for what it is worth, there are still a few out there which I would not mind checking out in the long run...

Fortunately I was blessed with a lousy memory, because I read the original Conan Doyle novel of this story, and watched at least 3 or 4 screen-adaptations already, but I still manage to get surprised by the denouement every single time! With regards to my expectations towards this 1983 made-for-TV version, they were merely just set on average. Not because I don't have faith in the skills of director Douglas Hickox and his crew, but rather because the older versions of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" are so phenomenal! Notably the 1939 version (with Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce and Lionel Atwill) and the 1959 version by Hammer studios (with Peter Cushing, André Morell and Christopher Lee) are awesome movies, and I simply assumed this TV-movie had few to nothing to add.

Well, I love to be proven wrong! This is a really solid and respectable interpretation or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most legendary novel. It's a very faithful adaptation, and the overall macabre atmosphere of the story is done justice by the exquisite use of décors, scenery and filming locations. The nightly escapades in the Devon' moors are effectively unsettling, the flashback - with footage of a drowning horse - is haunting, and the sequences with the titular hound are spooky. If you like fog, eerie howling, sinister old mansions and more fog, you will LOVE this film! The only blemish I can give, perhaps, is that both the Holmes and the Watson characters are blindly modeled after how Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce depicted them. Ian Richardson and Donald Churchill, although both giving stellar performances, don't seem to bring any of their own input in their characters. Apart from that; - great movie! Very much recommended.

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.

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.

Having watched the film I had to check the IDMB reviews..

and, Yes, I agree, overall an enjoyable film but am I the only one to notice that Martin Shaws performance has been dubbed? Listen and watch closely. Certainly not his voice, (even allowing for an American accent,) and the lip sync is slightly out on occasions.

However this only detracts slightly from the film.Ian Richardson certainly holds the whole thing together with a fine performance. The village scenes are possibly over populated but I get the feeling that the production is aimed also at the American market and therefore some aspects of English country life have been over emphasised to fall in line with the American view of our country.

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.

Having seen the Rathbone, Cushing and Brett versions, I settled down to watch this expecting a run-of-the-mill, made for TV "quickie" which would be instantly forgettable and just "yet another" rendition of a tale all too frequently told. I was very pleasantly surprised to find a very good production with excellent direction, ensuring that it whisks along at an excellent pace and that the viewer's attention never flags. Some parts of Richardson's portrayal of Holmes do not gel, (especially the ludicrous 'gypsey' scenes), but, overall, I think he does a first rate job and, in my view, exceeds the value of the performances by Rathbone and Cushing, which, while very good in their own day, are now hopelessly dated, (to the point of caricature in the case of Rathbone and virtually ALL of the supporting players in the 1939 version!)Good supporting roles also from Martin Shaw as Baskerville and David Churchill as an entirely credible Watson, avoiding the buffoonery of the Rathbone version but also not the "over-compensation" of the Hardwick portrayal in the Brett version. This latter version, (as with the complete ITV series starring Brett, (which must rate as THE "definitive" version of the Holmes stories on screen, (whether large or small)), must probably maintain its status as the "best" version I have seen to date, BUT the Richardson one is only just behind and, as already said, in terms of overall pace and energy probably exceeds it! A pity we did not see Richardson don the deer stalker more often!

"Without the curse of the imagination there would be no horror." ~Sherlock Holmes (1983). This quote sums up the story of The Hound of the Baskervilles perfectly. The horror is in the imagination of the characters about a ghostly hound killing people on the moors. It's up to Sherlock and Watson to crack this mysterious case.

This isn't a bad version of the tale - pretty good overall. I quite like Ian Richardson as Holmes though not quite the Holmes of the books.

If you run across this film I recommend watching if you like mysteries.

7/10.

SHERLOCK HOLMES: THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES has Ian Richardson in the role of the masterful mystery maven. Having loved both the Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett renditions, I looked forward to this one. I was not disappointed, as Richardson is a fantastic Holmes! Donald Churchill is also quite good as Dr. Watson.

The story itself is well-realized, making the "curse" believable, along with all of the characters affected by it. The finale is especially enjoyable. Many familiar British faces added some fun to the murky moors. How could anyone not smile when Connie Booth (MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS, FAWLTY TOWERS) and Brian Blessed (THE BLACK ADDER) appear as Laura and Geoffrey Lyons? Then, there's Denholm Elliot and Ronald Lacey (both from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK) as Dr. Mortimer and Inspector Lestrade! Great stuff, this!...

I watched this movie on the television the other day. I am a great Sherlock Holmes fan and have read all the stories several times. This film is not bad. You get the usual irritating plot changes and extra characters thrown in but overall they keep to the original story pretty well. Ian Richardson gives a competent if rather weak performance as Holmes but Donald Churchill is dreadful as Watson. Unfortunately he tries to do a Nigel Bruce impression and the result is terrible to watch. There is none of the humour and charm that Nigel Bruce brought to the role; however much you hate his version of Watson. The rest of the cast are pretty competent. Martin Shaw is okay as Sir Henry. I am not sure what Ronald Lacey and Brian Blessed are doing in the movie but Ronald Lacey (one of my favourite actors) is pretty amusing and brings a welcome bit of light relief to a pretty dour movie. I think Stapleton - like Moriarty - is one of the most difficult villains to portray in film because the evil is all hidden. Nicholas Clay is no worse than many others. All in all strictly one for Sherlock Holmes fans I think.

With is terrific production values, marvelously atmospheric sets and perfect casting (with just one weak link: Martin Shaw as Sir Henry Baskerville), this could have been a great mystery movie, but it does not fulfill one of the basic requirements of the genre: that you shouldn't be able to figure out the villain's identity before the movie reveals it to you. Even if you haven't read the novel or seen any of the other film versions of it (and I haven't), most of the plot twists can be seen well in advance. (**1/2)

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.

The Hound Of The Baskervilles gets umpteenth remake for the BBC in 1983 with Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes and Donald Churchill as Dr. Watson. This Holmes story which was a full length novel is maybe the most popular one of them all. Given all the versions who could say different?

Denholm Elliott comes calling at Baker Street for Sherlock Holmes on behalf of young Henry Baskerville played by Nicholas Clay. Clay is over from America to claim his inheritance. He became an heir because the previous Baskerville was frightened to death by something evil. There is a legend about the Baskervilles having a devil hound to do their bidding.

No need to go into the story as every fan of the Baker Street sleuth knows it. Ian Richardson and maybe this is not his fault because he looks like him, but I swore I was watching Peter Cushing in the role. Richardson is an aesthete Holmes and Donald Churchill an avuncular Dr. Watson.

Clay captures everyone's attention playing three different parts this version is truly his.

And Holmes purists won't complain.

This is one of the best Adaptations of Hound I have seen. Although it does not follow the book it is still enjoyable. The assassination of Sir Henry is done well.

Russell

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.

At first glance, I thought Ian Richardson would make a wonderful Holmes, but he turns out to be a little too flamboyant. However, this is still an enjoyable adaptation of the classic novel.

Made in the first flush of what might be called Diana-ism in Britain, in which, by some strange retrograde movement in the culture, new romanticism was allowed to blossom, this production of a well-worked story, for that, has both weaknesses and strengths, but by and large gets through fine. First things first, every Holmes story depends pretty much entirely on who's playing Holmes, and Ian Richardson does such a swell job, sharp, witty, intense and humane by turns, it's a major surprise he did not play the part more often. After that, one is left with the production values, and this one is a typical 80s combination of on location realism with set dressings of an overly frilly romantic sort that makes things at all times seem like a stage play exulting in its artifice for artifice sake. At times, this is fun, at other times, not so much, but by and large one goes with the flow. Things start out with a surprising vertiginous rendition of the killing of Charles Baskerville, who had apparently set up a romantic rendezvous with a woman in the greenhouse, for him then to be killed by the hound. Next up is Holmes at 221B, the quarters of which are pretty routine, but less routine is that Holmes and Watson bound out into the street to follow Baskerville to the hotel and quash an assassination attempt of Baskerville, with a lot artifice in costume and setting, and then too the hotel is rather more lavishly Victorian in a romantic sort of way than normal. In the same way, the moors of Cornwall are given full rein to vast landscape scenarios, and in this one the nostalgia structure of the movie harks back to 1939 in giving scenic emphasis to the prehistoric house relics that litter the moors, as well as the mounds and cliffs that abut them. An added subplot here is that Baskerville's lover husband is a bounder, confronting even Watson in an also typically quaint and cozy pub scene, including LeStrade coming down to look for Selden. Adding to the artifice, as if throwing smoke in front of the eyes to obscure detection of the obvious, Holmes as a gypsy confronts Watson oddly in a birch woods by the moor, and there is even an extension of that by letting Holmes-in-disguise hide out in a gypsy camp where when he reads the fortune in the palm of Stapleton's sister, who is a veritable Diana lookalike, all creamy and romantic, this actually turns out to the be the turning clue, that she smelled of jasmin, like the note to Baskerville at the hotel (but we find that out at the end, but unique in tellings). With other romantic horserides on the moors, in profile, this one continues to exult in the escapism of it all. Another strength, which surprises one at first, is that this version harks back hardly to the 1939 version in which the fog on the moors is set up almost as a stageset with pure artifice and this is given surprisingly, retrograde sensation. The main problem at the core of the movie is that Stapleton, played, first off, as a butterfly quack, who then turns out to be a hothead, reacting against Baskerville kissing his sister (who is really his wife), obviously looks exactly like the portrait of Sir Charles in the pool hall and the movie ought to have ended the instant he stood in front of that portrait in offering an apology to Baskerville for his outburst. Since this is the major clue in most tellings, for it to be tossed off as just so much tosh and nonsense so early bespeaks the artificiality and fun of the outing. Also highly theatrical is Holmes finally revealing himself to Watson, in disguise as the gypsy, in the cave, this time by way of accordion (the movie exults in implements of antique times) and then, later, when the final show-down comes, Stapleton takes shots at cornered Holmes, in the same cave, only it is a mannequin decoy therefor, for him to be chased down, to go under the bog. The movie also makes much of the green phosphorescent deception of the hound in a dramatically staged killing of Selden (Eleanor Bron of Help! Fame is aboard as Selden's sister, not having that much to do), though seems to forget this trope later. It even makes a face at us by way of a gargoyle when, in his final deceit, Holmes announces to Lestrade that the case is solved, to hauls Watson back to London, when, of course, they have no intention of leaving, and, in fact, set a trap for Stapleton, much like, in terms of mis en scene, like the 1939 Rathbone telling too. When then Stapleton is revealed, by way of the portrait, Holmes saying that it is the best example of a throwback he has ever seen-this remark underscoring deeply the throwback nature of the whole production-we also find out that Beryl is Stapleton's wife not sister, but Henry does not mind, he'll take her, the movie ends with a heavy dose of her pure early 80s Dianaistic blonde purity and sanctity, so that it looks like they will surely couple after the closing credits, a happy ending. All in all, it is a quite lavish affair, and, if you can accept the premise of artificiality which pervades the production values, and their desire to romantically exult in time-worn devices that they might nonetheless have thought a tad dated, just for the sly fun of it, and then turning it out with the true romance of Beryl and Henry, then it will work fine, and, besides, Richardson is terrific from beginning to end, carrying the whole thing off quite nicely.

Ian Richardson was contracted to make a series of Sherlock Holmes films for American television. They only got around to making two before the series was cancelled. The Hound of the Baskervilles was the first of them.

Richardson's performance displays that he did do plenty of research for the role and gave some thought to his performance. At least that was not wasted as in later years he would go on to play Dr Joseph Bell for a BBC series, the man who inspired Conan Doyle to the character of Sherlock Holmes.

Sadly this is a largely bland and uninspired version of the famous story. There is a lot of studio bound scenes and it looks like it. The costumes and the sets look wonderful.

Watson is a bit of a stuffy duffer arguing with Lestrade. There is no mutual respect between these characters which was sad.

Richardson is wonderful when he is in disguise, the best bit about it. I thought Martin Shaw's accent was very good but his voice did not sound like Martin Shaw at all. Only to find out he had been dubbed by another actor. Brian Blessed does not surprise anyone with another shouty performance.

The hound was actually ok, it clearly was animated when you first see it. The whole production brought nothing new to the table. Solid but dull.

Maybe have seen this version 50 times and I continue without getting tired. Always encounter some new detail. Above all is Ian Richardson, S.H., that embroiders the paper. The sir Hugo scene with the girl in the swamp, and the horse being in death agony is memorable. As much the decorations as the exterior are magnificent. For everything it and more I give him a 10.

Until the next one.

Holmes and Watson must unlock the mystery of a murder on the English moors by a vicious dog. At first the dog was thought to be a rabid Pomeranian, but was found later to be a larger species. Was the dog just a kill crazy mutt who enjoyed slaughtering humans because he liked the taste of blood, or was there something more sinister behind him? Sherlock breaks out his magnifying glass and gives us the answer. Good story with lots of spooky scenes in the fog shrouded, swampy moors.

I couldn't watch this past the quicksand scene. Riding a horse into a pit then filming it struggle and scream was too repulsive. Put this out of circulation so these idiots don't receive any more royalties for abusing animals.