Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Jordan Hageman Easily my favorite and easily the best Sherlock Holmes interpretation. I have seen many Sherlock Holmes shows, films, etc. but this is staggeringly accurate and spot on. I love this film and it is so faithful to the source material while introducing some interesting things. The acting of course is sensational with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke as Holmes and Watson.I highly recommend this film and this canon of Sherlock Holmes to any fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's material. Other great films/series in the same universe and with Brett and Hardwicke would be The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, Masterpiece Mystery, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes.

Troll_Dahl A few words on this adaptation of Hound, which seems to get mixed reviews: it does have its weaknesses. There are some lovely shots of moorlands but they are occasionally interspersed at odd moments, not exactly where you would expect establishing shots. The film does give the impression of a low budget in this regard, as well as in the fact that special effects seem limited, especially concerning the titular dog. When Seldon is attacked by the dog, if you're watching carefully, you'll catch footage of Sir Henry's attack. But there is a great amount of period visual detail evoking Victorian England that helps make up for the shortcomings.Performances are generally excellent. Although some say Jeremy Brett's health was already effecting his performances by this time (this was one of the middle installments of his tenure as Holmes), I just watched this film again recently and don't see it. Just as in the story, Holmes is largely out of the picture while Watson stays with Sir Henry at Baskerville Hall, but there are some really lovely and clever inserts giving us fleeting glimpses of Holmes' activities and clues of what is to come, and whenever he is on camera, Brett shines. I love the excitement in his voice when Dr. Mortimer, upon meeting Holmes at Grimpen, asks if he is any closer to solving the case and if there is indeed a hound, and his simple answers: "I am. There is." The moment is played perfectly. The early scenes at Baker Street, with Holmes and Watson examining Mortimer's stick and Mortimer asking for a cast of Holmes "dolichocephalic skull", are equally delightful. Listen for Brett's signature wonderful laugh. "Behave and sit down, Dr. Mortimer". The demanding role of Dr. Watson is here ably filled by Edward Hardwicke. Some prefer David Burke, whom Hardwicke replaced in this series, but I find Hardwicke to be splendid and quite convincing as Holmes' likable, solid but sensitive gentleman companion. He does a good job of holding the fort in Holmes' absence. Other standout performances include Alastair Duncan as Dr. Mortimer, an eccentric physician and scientist, who shares a good chemistry in scenes with Dr. Watson. Watch them when Watson comes upon Mortimer's paleontological dig site on the moors. Also, James Faulkner has a strong presence as Stapleton; Ronald Pickup makes the small role of Barrymore, the Baskerville butler, surprisingly full and warm; and keep your eye out for Bernard Horsfall, as Frankland, a colorful local astronomer--a very fun performance. Kristopher Tabori is quite solid as Sir Henry Baskerville, a man who has spent most of his life in America but is trying to be English again. The proliferation of clues and the story structure is generally handled well, although one or two sequences are strangely short, making it seem rather choppy. Some say the pace is too slow but I don't especially mind. I think the movie works well in terms of pacing when you let it soak in. It does work gradually but there are moments of genuine Gothic atmosphere. There isn't much action; it's more of a suspense piece and, in keeping with the novel, there's plenty of talking, meal time scenes, etc. I think it has an episodic quality and this, too, is in keeping with the novel, as much of Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles is told through diary entries and letters of Dr. Watson and it was originally published serially. I think if you let it unfold on its own terms, not expecting wall-to-wall breathless excitement, it works pretty well, although it could be that a mini-series format would suit this novel quite well. It also true that music is used minimally. This works at times and may sap the movie of energy at others. As Patrick Gowers' scores for this series are always wonderful, the music is somewhat missed, but I can also see points at which the eerie silence of the remote moorlands is an atmospheric asset. It's definitely a deliberate choice not to be heavy-handed with music but to let a sense of ambiance in and allow quiet to do much of the work. And again, the filming locations for Grimpen are beautiful as is the gorgeous house used for Baskerville Hall. The locations are full of Gothic atmosphere and used very well. I enjoy just seeing Baskerville Hall on camera and getting some of those lovely nature shots. Dr. Watson describes "the beauties of the moor in autumn" and we can see what he means--beautiful.Overall, this film is highly recommended for fans of the Brett series and of Holmes, especially if you're happy with a low-key, quiet movie that is engaging and has rewards for people are patient with it and let it soak in. And do expect it to be a somewhat low-budget TV film. It's 1980s English TV. It is what it is. For newcomers to the series, The Sign of Four would be recommended first of the feature films, as it's exciting and spirited and a good adventure mystery. Hound of the Baskervilles may be better for when you already love the series and want some more of it to savor on a quiet evening. Like any series, it obviously works better when you're invested in the characters. It's not a perfect movie but along with being based upon a truly classic tale, it's very good for its time and place, with fine acting, filming locations, and photography-- and added pleasure for dog lovers!

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.

tedg If you want to understand film, you need to understand the three main narrative types: noir, that genre derived from the musical, and the detective story.While the detective story in film essentially means Agatha Christie, you can't understand that unless you understand Holmes. And the "Hound", my friends is the only long form we have of the Holmes stories.Further, if you are looking for a version that is true to the source (more or less) plus being slightly engaging, this is your station for the evening. There are lots of problems, not the least of which is the material. The Holmes stories are impossibly unfilmable: it is "precinematic" literature that imagines engravings first (a severed engineer's thumb for instance) and then spins an intellectual universe around that. Within this is the yeoman reportage of Watson which is distinctly journalistic. This only works well on the short form. "Hound" was a failure even by Victorian pulp standards, because it attempted subplots and parallel threads and succeeded imperfectly. So in "Hound" we start with a poorly crafted story that is also inherently uncinematic.But what a story! Doyle was by this time just entering his own belief that the supernatural did exist. In fact, he became the leading figure in the world-wide spiritualist movement. After this period he would famously play the "modern" scientist to the debunking Houdini an amazing reversal of roles: Conan Doyle invented the "thinking machine" human rooted in logic and Houdini made a living fostering the illusion of hidden powers. Doyle's struggle with the two sides mirrors that of the story. Add to that the production values of this series. Of all attempts, this has the best depiction of Holmes, or at least it started out that way. Brett's Holmes is full of private and explosive thoughts. His character is bipolar and attracted to drugs.True to the established BBC model, the producers shifted the creative team around for each episode so the quality varies. The director this time, Mills, takes a Sherlockian perspective himself. When the story starts and before we get banished to the moor, he establishes the detective's eye. His camera swoops about, examining details of the situation as if it were our eye and we were Holmes.As an example, there's a great scene with the doctor from the moors ("Mortimer," get it?), the new Sir Baskerville, Holmes and Watson having breakfast in a fancy hotel. While another TeeVee director would give us two alternating over the shoulder shots with an establishing one, Mills swoops all about the whole room then after a 180 degree swing settling on the threatening letter. It is dePalma drawn smallish for the little screen, but its nice.And overlain on all this is Brett's second edition of Holmes. It is after his breakdown and first institutionalization. After he has disfigured his hair, after the lithium has added 40-50 pounds and drained all the life from his face and spirit. To get the value of this we need to remember his previous Holmes version from the motions he copies from that time.And so we have the rule of twos set in discovery: an author casting reason against magic and personally deciding on magic; his character casting the same and deciding the opposite; the filmmaker (such as they are in TeeVee projects) casting the alert eye against an uncinematic vision and personally winning; and the actor casting the same and personally losing.Along the way the adapter forgets the brutish, wife beating artist, the one concession Doyle made to reflection.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.