The Hound of the Baskervilles

Not a classic to be sure, but a decent TV movie-of-the-week adaptation of the oft-filmed Conan Doyle novel. Although it departs somewhat from the book, all the essential elements of the story are there. The cast does its best, and Granger makes an interesting Holmes. It would have been nice to have seen him as the Great Detective in other movies; he really was a class act. As noted by others, Bernard Fox is a more than adequate Dr. Watson. The costumes and sets are also good for a made-for-TV production of this era. But that music! You'd think that with the entire Universal Studios library of music at their disposal, the producers could have chosen more appropriate themes and cues!

At about 72 minutes, this brief version of a classic mystery makes an enjoyable time-filler; suitable for family viewing.

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)...

This film is cheap, nasty and very funny. William Shatner at his plank-like best. Why Stuart Grainger ever got involved with this dog, is a mystery of the first order. The sets steal the show, the major laugh coming from the use of old cowboy film sets to represent a Dartmoor village! Too many liberties taken with the original story to mention, but I was not the only one who lost the plot, so did the director.A major insult to Arthur Conan Doyle, but a bloody good chortle for anyone who doesn't take their Holmsian epics too seriously.

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.

This is the umpteenth version of a popular Conan Doyle mystery novel, featuring the legendary Sherlock Holmes and his assistant Watson. Unfortunately, this is the poorest version of the story of the lot, with terribly miscast actors struggling to contend with an amateurish script. Shatner and Zerbe in particular look misplaced amid the period trappings, but even Granger (as Holmes) doesn't seem to fit, in spite of his classical English accent.Even the music for the movie is plundered from Cape Fear. If you want to see a good Sherlock Holmes movie, stick with the Basil Rathbone series.... this is the pits!