The Hound of the Baskervilles

I am a great fan of the Granada television series starring Jeremy Brett. I have all of the episodes taped, with the Mystery commentaries by Vincent Price. Most of these are gems. There is no doubt in my mind who the best portrayer of Holmes is: Brett, hands down. I have read and taught this story so many times, so when I saw it was next on the docket, I was so thrilled. Unfortunately, it seemed to be a weak entry in the series. If this series is attempting to be true to the works of Conan-Doyle, why doe they once again play fast and loose with characters and plot. Why do they forsake the original story of Sir Hugo Baskerville? Why are some of the significant characters missing. I own at least 12 versions of this story on video, and not one of them follows the plot of the original story. Normally, my belief is that we are dealing with two different media, the silver screen and the printed page. However, when using a novella such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice plot elements and personalities. A few years later, I saw another version on Public Television. A nicely told story, very violent, like this story is. But, once again, a bunch of implanted gobbledygook. This one tries hard to follow the general plot, but it doesn't work. One critic complains about the lack of screen time for Holmes. That's a part of the plot. He is working behind the scenes. Once he arrives in Dartmoor, he has a great deal of screen time. It's not awful, but we had Jeremy Brett at his best; why not make a script that would go down in history.

This was a very fine adaptation of a great book. True it does start off slowly, like the book, and I don't think it is quite as good as 1987's Sign of Four. That was creepy, suspenseful, and featured a wonderfully understated performance from the late great John Thaw. The minor negatives aside, this is a conveniently faithful and suspenseful adaptation.

It does benefit from fine camera work, wonderful scenery and costumes, and the music score was superb. And there are some genuinely creepy moments, in particular the opening and any other scene with the very scary looking Hound. It isn't all creepy though. There is a very charming ad libbing moment between Holmes and Watson, that was really nice to see.

And the acting was great, especially Jeremy Brett as Holmes. Despite the fact that he was ill during production, he still gave a stellar turn as always in the role I remember him by most. Brett was a great actor, and it was a real shame when he died; I will always consider him as the definitive Holmes, with his gritty baritone and towering presence Brett was perfect as Holmes. Edward Hardwicke as Dr Watson is a really nice contrast, and their chemistry is evident here. The supporting performances were sterling, worth of note were James Faulkener and Ronald Pickup.

All in all, while not as good as Sign of Four, it was a very atmospheric and faithful adaptation. 9/10 Bethany Cox

"The Hound of the Baskervilles' has always been my favourite Sherlock Holmes adventures. I have seen at least three movies (this one, one with Basil Rathbone as Holmes and one with Peter Cushing as the great detective) I must admit that this is the best. None of them were based exactly on the book. The only thing I can suggest is that since this is a TV series, it could be made a bit longer with more than one episode.

Firstly, my opinion towards this endeavour is quite biased by the fact that I love Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Holmes in the Granada series. He - and the whole production - made for me the ideal shift in medium between literature and television. I love the books as books, and I love the small screen version as television. I think Conan Doyle's message in Hound has been carried faithfully forward in this production, or at least as much as is possible when going to television from literature.

Yes, the production is slow at times: so is the book. And therein lies this story's particular charm; it is to be savoured, like a fine cigar with cognac, not to be devoured like a Big Mac meal. Both have their own unique charm, and are to be appreciated in their own unique way. Hound is to be savoured, to be meditated upon, its taste becomes rich and appreciated only after examination. And it is in this vein that it must be appreciated. It is, admittedly, difficult to appreciate this sort of production in our society, but at least this production brings us back to a time when the viewer must interact and work along with the production to appreciate it fully. Which is not unlike the book itself; and it is an ingenious accomplishment to take not only the raw content of the book and film it, but to take the very underlying unspoken mystique of the book, and capture that on celluloid as well.

On these counts, this production succeeds magnificiently. I encourage everyone to watch this, but not just to watch, but involve yourself in it. Beyond the genius of the film mentioned above, Holmes and Watson are depicted magnificiently, and the sets are quite good; dismal, bleak and unappealing in the country, and (what I imagine is) Victorian England come alive again in the scenes from London.

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" is not my favorite Sherlock Holmes film: There are problems with the hound no matter how it is portrayed, and the violence in the film is disturbing. "The Hound" has perhaps suffered from overexposure; it is by all odds the most famous of the Sherlock Holmes tales. It lacks the substance of other full-length Holmes films, such as "The Sign of Four" and "The Master Blackmailer." And it lacks the horror of "The Last Vampire," which Conan Doyle wrote as a tribute to his friend Bram Stoker, the celebrated author of "Dracula."

The acting in the Sherlock Holmes films is consistently good. For me as for many other people, Jeremy Brett was the quintessential Holmes. It is a pity he is no longer around to play the part, and an even greater pity that the Holmes films are being remade in what promises to be a greatly inferior version.