Der Hund von Baskerville

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.

"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.

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!