Der Hund von Baskerville

I have a great deal of affection for this movie. It's flawed, but it's a hoot! Granger certainly makes a unique and entertaining Holmes. The decision to cast Bernard Fox as Watson was a fabulous move. The cast also includes the always entertaining Anthony Zerbe and William Shatner too! I agree with another reviewer who noted that Holmes living on a hill overlooking London is definitely a nice touch. It truly conjures up the idea of Holmes as a protector of the city. This version of the classic tale deserves it's reputation as a cheap and cheesy TV movie, but it also deserves to be remembered as being hell of a lot of fun! I've had a ball enjoying this one on many occasions. Fun stuff!

This is clearly the most popular Sherlock Holmes adventure, since it is the one most actors choose in order to showcase their suitability for the role (notably Basil Rathbone at Universal and Peter Cushing for Hammer) and was even plundered for spoofing purposes in 1978! With this in mind, it is small wonder that Stewart Granger, too, has turned up in an adaptation; the end result, however, was very much disliked by Leonard Maltin – rating it 'Below Average' and accorded the unenviable epithet "for masochists only"! Still, all things considered, its main fault is that of being thoroughly superfluous – with no new take on the narrative (apart from presenting us with the first white-haired Holmes!) and, worse, ripping off Dr. Watson's buffoonish characterization straight from Nigel Bruce! If anything, the film-makers have managed to recruit a serviceable cast (including a fine Anthony Zerbe as a limping and henpecked{!} doctor, a wasted Jane Merrow and Sally Ann Howes, a grumpy John Williams, and a surprisingly restrained William Shatner in a dual role), while the titular beast looks vicious enough (unlike some of the better versions, admittedly!) – what is more, this is certainly proof that, in some cases, the plot really is the thing (as the saying goes)...

...And that's an aspect of the set design- one tiny thing, mind you- the background painting of St Paul's Cathedral behind Baker Street, that gives the impression that Holmes lives on a hill overlooking London. It's irrelevant to most people, but for me that's a nugget of accidental genius that sums up how I feel about Holmes... the watchful guardian etc etc.

Apart from that, yes it's crap.

And that is understated! The film does take a lot of liberty with the original story. But not only that. Stewart Granger who might not be a bad actor after all is certainly not a Shelock Holmes. And who in those days would have appointed a person as looking like Mortimer as Medical officer of any district in those days. I mean - why create a mysterious character where there is no need of one. One thing however is remarkable in this case. According to the book Mortimer is "a fellow under thirty". Anthony Zerbe was 36 when this film was made. Still older than the original Mortimer yet younger than Lionel Atwill in the film from '39 who was then 54 or Francis de Wolff who was 46 in ‘59 when Terence Fisher chose to make his film or Denholm Elliot in the '83 version who was then already 61. The Set has been commented on in several critics and there is nothing much to add to this. The costumes are all right, I guess (even if it seems that the whole male population of London was wearing Inverness Capes) but why did Holmes have to wear that ridiculous Bow-Tie in the beginning. One thing however should be mentioned: Bernard Fox. I have not seen any other performances of his but I did like him as Watson. He is not quite the bumbler as in many other Holmes films but has in fact some rather bright moments in this one. Anyway he is not unlike the Paget Watson.

This adaptation of Conan Doyle's most famous Sherlock Holmes story was made as a TV movie for ABC -- evidently with considerably limited resources. I don't begrudge a film for being made under budget of resource constraints but this "Hound of the Baskervilles" doesn't handle those constraints well. On the whole it has a good number of flaws, none of which is vastly troublesome individually, but which together make it an uninspiring Sherlock Holmes film.

It's a sad victim of needing resources for a story set in a different time and with a wider scope than perfectly standard TV programs circa 1972, and not getting that. As a result there are some distractingly sloppy production decisions, with poorly disguised studio sets doubling for the moor, some scenes obviously dubbed in later, and even paintings used as exteriors and some very obvious CSO/bluescreen representing Watson's reflection in tea set early on. The stock music score is distracting, loud, and almost amusingly inappropriate at times.

Stewart Granger is rather oddly cast as Sherlock Holmes as he does not look the part at all, but that is not in itself a flaw. His acting is adequate for these purposes but it's really rather a one-dimensional performance, mainly slick superiority and not much more. Bernard Fox is a pretty good Watson, traditionally befuddled yet still believable when he does something intelligent.

William Shatner is a very recognizable face "guest starring" (per the credits) in a small role as Stapleton. Jokes aside, I actually think he's a very good actor, and it's nice to see him here. Other performances are generally lackluster, except for Anthony Zerbe as Dr. Mortimer. He started out impressing me as too obviously sinister, but then growing on me in a quiet and eccentrically good performance.

The script of the adaptation is serviceable if very surface-oriented and lacking in much sparkle. This was entertaining enough viewing for its running time, but overall one is left with an impression of a careless production on which not many people really tried very hard; I'm not surprised Watson's obvious hint at sequels to this production in the closing moments was not taken up.