VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,5/10
1450
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA Sherlock Holmes spoof about a family that has been haunted for years by the curse of a horrible hound.A Sherlock Holmes spoof about a family that has been haunted for years by the curse of a horrible hound.A Sherlock Holmes spoof about a family that has been haunted for years by the curse of a horrible hound.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 3 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
Looking at today's conveyor belt of mind-numbing remakes of old shows, idiot teen comedies and action fests that have great special effects but little else, it's easy to get very nostalgic about the 1970s. But the decade of Coppola, Scorcese, Altman, Malik, Bogdanovic etc produced its fair share of cow pats and what an 'Annis Mirablis' 1978 was for truly wretched cinema. Hot on the heals of 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' (with the Bee Gees), 'Carry on Emmanuelle' and 'Renaldo and Clara' (a Bob Dylan vehicle..don't ask), came this fetid attempt to satire Holmes and Watson. First off, it has to said that the Cook-Moore contribution to postwar British comedy is immeasurable and would probably fit in third place after the Pythons and Goons. But even the greats have their off days and Pete and Dud were well off when they agreed to let Paul Morrisey direct a comedy that manages to bungle every comic moment. The falsetto Welsh accent of Watson (Moore) and the stage Jewish accent of Holmes (Cook) simply irritate and a very strong cast is completely wasted. Why, for example, is Spike Milligan only afforded a 'fleeting appearance'? Others do their best with lamentable gags. The urinating dog of Denholm Elliot isn't funny, simply disgusting and Roy Kinnear's flasher could have been funny but simply falls flat. Morrisey doesn't know whether to be clever and satiric, akin to 'Life of Brian', or cheerfully bawdy like a Carry On movie. The result is a movie that's neither seaside postcard humour nor the anarchistic satire that Pete and Dud had presented so well a decade before. A truly washed out Kenneth Williams, fresh off 'Emmanuelle' (Jesus wept) is slotted in, his usual flared-nostril, bulgy eyed caricature demolishing the myth that he was a great actor trapped by the Carry Ons. Better artistes like Henry 'Arthur Sultan' Woolf and Prunella 'Sybil' Scales simply have walk ons. Meanwhile, the look of the movie is cheap and stagey while Moore's piano score is out of place in a comedy. Given that he and Cook were successfully belting out the punk humour of Derek and Clive at the same time, this dog can't be explained by the fact that Cook was by then alcoholic and depressed. Perhaps Morrisey was really Moriarty in disguise.
Hound of the Baskervilles, The (1978)
BOMB (out of 4)
As a fan of bad movies I quite often find myself trying to track down and locate some of the worst films ever made. Sometimes these bad movies turn out to be entertaining but sometimes they turn out to be so bad that I often wonder why no one was seeing how bad the dailies were and didn't try to pull the plug. That's what I felt here. This story has been told countless times and since it's the most popular perhaps that's why everyone involved decided to shoot it. We have Peter Cook playing Holmes and Dudley Moore playing Watson but it really doesn't matter because I think anyone could have been in the roles and things would have been bad no matter what. Cook, Moore and director Morrissey wrote the screenplay her and I can't help but picture the three of them sitting around, passing a joint and laughing their heads off at what they were writing. That's the only thing I can think of that would make any of them feel as if they had anything working in this screenplay. The movie gets off to a horrendous start and it doesn't improve any and in the end I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder why no one put a bullet in this sucker before it could hit theaters. The deadliest sin a comedy can make is that it's not funny and this movie makes the unforgivable sin of not having a single laugh. For the most part we have various characters acting gay and this appears to be the only joke going. Everyone acts extremely strange and that includes Holmes who we first see as some sort of sissy and I guess the screenwriters through this would be hilarious. The rest of the jokes are just downright flat and it almost seems like no effort was made to make any of them funny. For the life of me I couldn't understand how anyone could find this mess entertaining and most of the blame is right on the screenplay. As far as the performances go they're just as bad as the writing. The film ends with many bizarre jokes including an extremely bad spoof of THE EXORCIST that comes out of no where and seems out of place. I tried to think of at least one nice thing to say about this film but couldn't think of one as even the titles are boring and the music (by Moore) is pathetic. A complete disaster this one is and I'm sure you can safely call this the worst Holmes movie in history.
BOMB (out of 4)
As a fan of bad movies I quite often find myself trying to track down and locate some of the worst films ever made. Sometimes these bad movies turn out to be entertaining but sometimes they turn out to be so bad that I often wonder why no one was seeing how bad the dailies were and didn't try to pull the plug. That's what I felt here. This story has been told countless times and since it's the most popular perhaps that's why everyone involved decided to shoot it. We have Peter Cook playing Holmes and Dudley Moore playing Watson but it really doesn't matter because I think anyone could have been in the roles and things would have been bad no matter what. Cook, Moore and director Morrissey wrote the screenplay her and I can't help but picture the three of them sitting around, passing a joint and laughing their heads off at what they were writing. That's the only thing I can think of that would make any of them feel as if they had anything working in this screenplay. The movie gets off to a horrendous start and it doesn't improve any and in the end I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder why no one put a bullet in this sucker before it could hit theaters. The deadliest sin a comedy can make is that it's not funny and this movie makes the unforgivable sin of not having a single laugh. For the most part we have various characters acting gay and this appears to be the only joke going. Everyone acts extremely strange and that includes Holmes who we first see as some sort of sissy and I guess the screenwriters through this would be hilarious. The rest of the jokes are just downright flat and it almost seems like no effort was made to make any of them funny. For the life of me I couldn't understand how anyone could find this mess entertaining and most of the blame is right on the screenplay. As far as the performances go they're just as bad as the writing. The film ends with many bizarre jokes including an extremely bad spoof of THE EXORCIST that comes out of no where and seems out of place. I tried to think of at least one nice thing to say about this film but couldn't think of one as even the titles are boring and the music (by Moore) is pathetic. A complete disaster this one is and I'm sure you can safely call this the worst Holmes movie in history.
Harry Thompson's very readable biography of Cook gives some of the background to the making of this dismal effort. Cook and Moore didn't have the creative control they should have done, and for whatever reason didn't feel able to pull the plug when it was clear that things were going horribly wrong.
The main problem is that Paul Morrissey has no clue about how Pete & Dud's humour works. This leads him to try and shoehorn them into his idea of "Carry on Sherlock" (a genre which he also fatally misunderstands).
Worse, much of Pete & Dud's groundbreaking work from the 60's is recycled in debased form - notably the one-legged man auditioning for the part of Tarzan.
I didn't even make it all the way through this when it was on TV a while back. See "Bedazzled" which has the benefit of a proper director and is a worthy showcase for perhaps the best English comedian of all. This is only notable as evidence of/a contribution to Cook's sad decline.
The main problem is that Paul Morrissey has no clue about how Pete & Dud's humour works. This leads him to try and shoehorn them into his idea of "Carry on Sherlock" (a genre which he also fatally misunderstands).
Worse, much of Pete & Dud's groundbreaking work from the 60's is recycled in debased form - notably the one-legged man auditioning for the part of Tarzan.
I didn't even make it all the way through this when it was on TV a while back. See "Bedazzled" which has the benefit of a proper director and is a worthy showcase for perhaps the best English comedian of all. This is only notable as evidence of/a contribution to Cook's sad decline.
A misguided attempt to present a comic parody of the Conan Doyle tale, with Peter Cook as Sherlock Holmes and Dudley Moore as Dr Watson. Moore also plays Holmes' mother (!) and in this guise, is possibly the best thing in the film. Otherwise there is a spoof of the spinning head in The Exorcist, Denholm Elliot and a constantly urinating dog, and lame excuses for jokes' and funny situations' which really aren't.
Although it has one or two moments which provoke a smile, the original source material isn't such that it survives being tweaked to this extent. Perhaps not the point, but the rest of the inspiration for this turkey must have been written on the back of a postage stamp. Skip this and watch Bedazzled and Not Only But Also instead.
Although it has one or two moments which provoke a smile, the original source material isn't such that it survives being tweaked to this extent. Perhaps not the point, but the rest of the inspiration for this turkey must have been written on the back of a postage stamp. Skip this and watch Bedazzled and Not Only But Also instead.
A wonderful cast are here involved in what must be the lowest point in all their careers.For some reason Dudley Moore plays Dr.Watson as a high voiced Welshman,and Peter Cook gives Holmes a "stage Jewish" accent!Made up of series of draggy sketches,everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown into the pot-including "The Exorcist" and Pete and Dud's "one leg short" sketch;the result is an incoherent mess.Most potentially amusing moments are killed dead by the sloppy approach of Paul Morrissey's direction.No attempt is made to capture the mystery of the original story, and the players shout,mug and flail around among pathetic threadbare sets.According to Harry Thompson's biography of Cook,Pete and Dud were deeply unhappy about Morrissey's approach to the material,and saw they'd got themselves into a disaster.
No wonder the off screen audience throw rotten vegetables at Dudley at the end.A truly stupid film. .....that rumbling noise whenever this film is shown is old Sir Arthur spinning in his grave!
No wonder the off screen audience throw rotten vegetables at Dudley at the end.A truly stupid film. .....that rumbling noise whenever this film is shown is old Sir Arthur spinning in his grave!
Lo sapevi?
- QuizFinal English language cinema movie of actor-comedian Terry-Thomas.
- Blooper(52:03) The chihuahua Watson walks past is clearly tethered to the set (in the one opening shot of the sequence) to keep it on-camera.
- Citazioni
Sir Henry Baskerville: All the Baskervilles have hearty dicks... dicky hearts, I mean.
- Versioni alternativeThe UK R2 DVD contains 2 versions of this film. The original 1978 theatrical print that runs 85 mins and a re-edited re-release print that runs 74m. The major differences are (a) in the theatrical print the opening credits are postioned after the scene with the 3 nuns and roll over various amusing shots of Holmes and Watson in their Baker Street study (Holmes is reading a book by Freud called Guilt without Sex). In the re-edited print, the credits are positioned over the pages of the book after the intro scene with Dudley Moore on the piano. These credits are much abbreviated compared to the theatrical print and run much shorter. (b) When Holmes is first seen in shadow playing the violin the re-edited version then cuts back to Watson with the nuns saying he is Budapest and Holmes appearing behind him. The theatrical print extends the footage of Holmes in shadow so he now gets up, turns a light on, turns off a gramophone player and spits out his coffee before meeting the nuns. (c) the scene in which Watson meets Dr Franklin is much abbreviated in the re-edited version. In this version the scene ends after a brief conversation between the two in front of Franklin's shack. The theatrical print continues on with the scene for several minutes as Watson enters the hut with Franklin, views various stuffed animals' heads, and they have a conversation about why Franklin hated the late Sir Charles - jealously over his mistress. Franklin's mistress then enters the hut, the conversation continues, and then Franklin gets insanely jealous and starts strangling his young mistress as Watson crawls out of the building. The longer theatrical cut makes more sense and is better than the shorter print.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Paul Morrissey - Trans-Human Flesh & Blood (2025)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- The Hound of the Baskervilles
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 25min(85 min)
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti