Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Henry Kujawa What a stunningly BEAUTIFUL movie!!! By far the most visually sumptuous version of this often-filmed story, and between the directing and editing, one of the most exciting. Although they strayed from the book in a few places, mostly adding new things rather than leaving things out, it generally follows the story. All the new additions are balanced out by simplifying ("dumbing down"?) the dialog (MOSTLY obvious if you happen to watch it back-to-back with other versions) and TIGHT editing. There's hardly a casual entry shot anywhere in the film. Like the "007" movies, characters don't walk into a room, CUT!, they're already there and talking. Someone complained this was "too long", yet it feels CRAMMED with so much detail, I almost wish it were at least 15 minutes longer.Ian Richardson, in retrospect, reminds me of an older version of Ronald Howard's Holmes-- lively, impish, full of energy and humor. Donald Churchill (inexplicably replacing David Healy from the previous Richardson film) seems to be doing a somewhat laid-back Nigel Bruce impression. Denholm Elliot is delightfully "amiable" (a word Holmes uses to describe him) as Dr. Mortimer. Edward Judd (who I recall from THE NEW AVENGERS episode "TO CATCH A RAT") is the butler Barrymore, while Eleanor Bron ("Ahme" from HELP!) is his wife. Stapleton is played by Nicholas Clay, who'd been "Lancelot" in John Boorman's Excalibur! Laura Lyons (a character who only appears in certain versions, including this one, Tom Baker's and Jeremy Brett's) is played by Connie Booth (from FAWLTY TOWERS) while her husband, not seen in any other version, is the larger-than-life booming figure of Brian Blessed. His addition gives the film an extra suspect and red herring.This is simply an incredible movie to watch, although I do feel Tom Baker had a MUCH better script (though much poorer budget-- NOBODY mentions his, everybody goes on about Jeremy Brett's, which was SO BADLY directed it was a crime!). Continuing with comparisons, I was amazed some years ago when I decided the Basil Rathbone version, overall, was simply the "BEST FILM", although Peter Cushing's is incredibly fun to watch on its own merits (just as his version of Dracula also was-- no surprise, same director there).I've seen SEVERAL versions of HOUND since this, and several others I haven't mentioned before this, but NONE of them come anywhere close to this (or Rathbone, or Cushing, or EVEN Baker!!).Oh yes, and the ending, where Holmes reveals to Sir Henry exactly who Beryl really is, proves to be one of the best-written scenes in the film. Intelligent, and sympathetic. Wonderful piece of work!

orsino44 Ranking this one a point above Rathbone and Brett's versions. Taken as a whole, it's just a little better. Ian Richardson was a splendid Holmes. It's too bad he didn't get to do more of these than just THOTB and TSOF. Donald Churchill is fine as Watson, though David Healy in Sign of Four opposite Richardson is better. Production values are very good, especially for TV, and the supporting cast has gold in it. Martin Shaw is wonderful as Sir Henry, a full-fledged cowboy in this interpretation, and Nicholas Clay is a particularly nasty Stapleton (and Sir Hugo). The scene of Sir Hugo in the swamp with his captive -- well, let's just say you won't be sorry to see him get eaten by a devil dog. Which brings up the hound, one of the main reasons I like this version. The title character looks better here than in just about any previous version. For once, they stick with the novel and make it a spectral dog than glows wildly with fire in the night, and they make it look good. Though he didn't get to do many Holmes films, Richardson did make the series Murder Rooms, based on Dr. Joseph Bell, Doyle's professor who inspired the Holmes character. Check those out after you watch this.

bensonmum2 This 1983 version of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock Holmes' most famous mystery, is a rock solid effort. I enjoyed it immensely. And when you consider the fact that it's a made-for-TV film, it's even more amazing to me just how good it really is. I say amazing because I simply cannot imagine an American made-for-TV production equaling this British effort. Highlights for me include the acting (including nice performances by Ian Richardson, Brian Blessed, and Denholm Elliot), the location shoots (the authenticity of the movie is greatly enhanced by shooting on real mires and bogs), and a steady hand in the director's chair (the pacing of the film is just one of the movie's outstanding features). In fact, I've got very little to complain about. Sure, Donald Churchill all but takes his Watson into Nigel Bruce territory, but it's a minor distraction. Some of my favorite set-pieces included the hound attack in the fog, Holmes' gypsy impersonation, and the flashback sequence. Overall, this version of The Hound of the Baskervilles may not be my favorite and it may not be completely faithful to the source material, but it's a good show and well worth the effort to seek out for any fan of Sherlock Holmes.One final word on The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983) – I've got one small complaint about the DVD I viewed (R1 DVD from Image). Maybe it was just the copy I had or maybe it was the monitor I was watching it on, but several scenes were a bit too dark. A few times I had difficulty seeing what was going on. Like I said, maybe it was just me, but I thought I would put the warning out there just he same.

csrothwec 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!