The Hound of the Baskervilles

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)

"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.

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.

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...

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.