User reviews

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.

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

Sherlock (Jeremy Brett) and Watson (Edward Hardwicke) are hired by Doctor Mortimer (Neal Duncan) for the investigation a killing , the deceased Sr. Baskerville , who has been inherited by his brother Sir Henry (Kristoffer Tabori) . Watson goes to the mansion , there are the servants (Ronald Pickup) and he meets Stapleton (James Faulkner) and his sister . Meanwhile , an inmate has escaped and on the moors sounds the barking a savage beast .

This is an excellent film of the splendid Sherlock Holmes/Jeremy Brett TV series . It's a genuine ripping yarn with much suspense and intrigue . The film gets mystery , tension , detective action and packs an exciting deal of outstanding surprises with great lots of fun , despite being a known story . Jeremy Brett's magnificent interpretation , although the best Sherlock is forever Basil Rathbone . Brett plays as Holmes as an intelligent , obstinate , broody , pipesmoking sleuth , his acting is similar to Peter Cushing in television or Nicol Williamson (Seven-per-cent-solution) or Christopher Plummer (Murder by decree) in cinema . Here Dr. Watson isn't a botcher , bungler or clumsy partner usually incarnated by Nigel Bruce , but a cunning and astute pal well incarnated by Edward Hardwicke who even achieved recently success as co-protagonist in Oliver Twist (by Roman Polanski) . The movie has a creepy as well as eerie atmosphere , specially when is developed on the moors where lives the fearful giant beast ; besides , the London streets and 223 Baker Street house are well designed . The motion picture was well directed by Peter Hammond .

Other versions about this notorious novel are the followings : 1939 classy recounting by Sidney Landfield with Richard Greene , Basil Rathbone , Nigel Bruce , Lionel Atwill , Wendy Barrie ; 1959 by Terence Fisher with Peter Cushing , Andre Morell and Christopher Lee ; 1977 spoof rendition by Paul Morissey with Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore ; 1983 by Douglas Hickox with Ian Richardson and Donald Churchill ; 2000 TV by Rodney Gibbons with Matt Frewer and Kenneth Welsh , 2002 retelling with Richard Roxbough and Richard Hart , among others .

This is surely a great adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. And without the shadow of a doubt, the best of them all. To begin with, I believe that the way the legend itself is put is quite ingenious and adequate, for being a legend it cannot be portrayed as having happened. As with every such story it is not exactly real and so space is left to viewers to imagine how much of it is true. Of Brett the best that can be said is that he was Holmes! Whilst everyone else merely played Holmes. The same goes for Hardwicke as Watson, although Burke had come pretty close. I top this one along with The Devil's Foot Root episode, and the scene where Dr. Mortimer talks of his phrenological passion along with the one in The Devil's Foot Root when Holmes uses unusual resources to make his deductions regarding the Vicar Roundhay. The mystery is quite dense and anyone not familiar with Doyle's story will have a hard time making any sort of deductions before Holmes himself reveals his own. The pace of the movie is what it should be. I, for one, am weary of Hollywood's fast and action packed movies. This is one to allow yourself to soak in the atmosphere and appreciate the narrative quality of the story. If it hadn't the mystery it would still have some interest of its own. It is beautifully filmed, although one can discover one or two directing tricks. But that's just me who must have watched it some 50 times! On the whole, be sure to see it, better still, be sure to get a copy of it!!!

Jeremy Brett is as ever perfect as Holmes, so it's a shame he's not in it as much as I'd like. Edward Hardwick as Watson is his usual reliable self and manages to hold the viewer's attention. Some great scenes and first class acting aside, the production is a little slow. This will not bother anyone who has watched the Granada productions of Holmes stories before, but should be pointed out that this is a faithful retelling of Conan Doyles' original and not a fast paced, inaccurate Hollywood version. Overall the feature length episodes have never been as entertaining as the shorter series episodes, but this is still far more enjoyable than any other adaptation.

Brett is at the height of his powers in this, probably the best ever Hound of the Baskervilles adaptation. Although not granted a huge screen time, he simply lights up every scene he is in. Edward Hardwick also gives an excellent performance as the trusty Watson. Top production values all round, and fine acting, this is top stuff!

Though some may find Holmes's long stretches of absence disappointing in this adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles (the most celebrated of all Conan Doyle tales), it should be understood that these absences are in keeping with the original novel. Watson does much of the footwork here, and is separated from Holmes for most of the story. And since Watson was the man who penned the memoirs, he recorded his own experiences. When he was away from Holmes, he could not divine what Holmes was doing, and would only record Holmes's own account of his actions during their separation once they'd been reunited. So, in this respect, this version remains more faithful to the original story than any other. There is, after all, tremendous pressure to pack as much Sherlock Holmes as one can into what is ostensibly a Sherlock Holmes film. It takes guts to keep him out of the picture for as long as this adaptation does...but this adaptation shows its courage in staying true to the text, even if it means leaving Sherlock Holmes out of it, for the most part.

Really, this was the only one of the Granada feature films that could have been made at this time, as Jeremy Brett was (quite noticeably) ill and could not have taken part in a two hour film in which Holmes was on the main stage...the strain would have been too much. As always, Brett's Holmes (when he's around) is a remarkable performance, and Hardwicke's Watson proves yet again why he was a more-than-suitable replacement for David Burke. Overall, a fine adaptation of Sherlock Holmes's most famous adventure. This and, to a lesser extent, the 1983 television version with Ian Richardson are, to my mind, the definitive Hounds.

"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.

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.

For me this is still far and away the best production of The Hound of The Baskervilles, possibly because I still to this day see Jeremy Brett as the great detective, but that apart this adaptation has so much going for it. It has a fine mix of drama, suspense and even humour.

Sir Henry Baskerville is perfectly portrayed by Kristoffer Tabori, there is a likability to the character, he's the sympathetic character you take to and fear for. The production values are spot on, the usual costumes and sets of course, but the location work is perfect, you see that Grimpen Mire is a place of natural beauty, but it has an eerie feel which is beautifully captured.

Holmes's absence means a greater role for Watson, and Hardwicke does a fantastic job, such an underrated performance throughout the series. Brett is brilliant, he brings the character of Holmes to life. James Faulkner, Ronald Pickup etc support brilliantly, it's such a well acted drama.

As for the hound itself, they were wise not to have it in shot for long periods of time, not sure it worked awfully well, and the sound seemed odd. The final attack scene though does work, the build up and tension are well created.

Overall, it's a fantastic version. Love it, 9/10

I did enjoy this, the acting was consistently above average and the characters were decent. However, the plot was poorly paced in parts and the actual hound was just a bit weird, has good moments but drags in a lot of places which is a shame. Jeremy Brett and David Burke are great though.

6/10: Good

I think we would have had the best "Hound" ever if Granada had invested enough money in this Jeremy Brett/Edward Hardwick production. As it is, it is a very good production, but it could have been a truly great one.

This production has so much going for it—of course, starting with the best Holmes and Watson ever—Brett and Hardwicke.

Kristoffer Tabori is wonderful as Sir Henry Baskerville—just about the best I've ever seen. He really conveys Sir Henry's youthfulness. You easily believe that he has grown up in Canada and is a bit of a "fish out of water" in England. Plus he totally looks the part.

Alastair Duncan is also wonderful as Dr. Mortimer. Mortimer is usually portrayed as just the standard cardboard cutout of the older stiff- upper-lip British professional man. It is such a breath of fresh air to have this character portrayed as younger and much closer to the way he is described in the original story.

However, Fiona Gillies isn't so successful as Beryl Stapleton. This is a pivotal character and the weakness of this performance undermines the overall success of the production. They could and should have paid for an A-list actress for this part.

They could and should have shot and edited the whole sequence concerning the death of Sir Charles far better—in such a way as to really evoke his terror and to convey his belief in the supernatural character of the hound. After all, this scene sets up the entire framework for the story, as well as its mood.

Better special effects would have greatly improved the depiction of the attack of the hound on Sir Henry.

Just imagine if this production had had the budget of a first rate feature film—and all the additional resources and talents that would have made available. It could have been the definitive "Hound."

I am glad to find that I am not alone in my disappointment with this most famous of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Most people have heard of this Holmes story if they know of no others.

Virtually every other episode in the two series is first-rate in acting, script, drama and production values and I don't know of any critic who seriously disputes that Jeremy Brett is the definitive screen Sherlock Holmes but something falls terribly flat with this episode. I just felt I had to mark down the episode because I feel strongly it should not have come to this but for whatever reason did.

I can't quite put my finger on it but would venture that either through slack direction, mediocre script or lack of atmosphere, and the 'Baskerville hound' sequences themselves are I consider but poorly dramatised, the whole episode just falls quite flat and limp.

This was my disappointed reaction when I first saw it first screened all those years ago and the intervening years have not changed my opinion.

I watch it now out of a sense of duty when I see the series revived on cable but was frankly glad when the two and half hours was over.

This was the only feature length entry in the Granada Holmes series that I hadn't seen, but finally caught up with it - compared to the others it isn't one of the best, mainly because the bulk of the film has Holmes absent or as a shadowy presence, a disembodied voice. I'm not knocking the performance of Edward Hardwicke as Watson, who is as good as ever, as the good doctor is sent to the wilds of Dartmoor with the quicksands and the ghostly howls, to protect the American heir to the Baskerville fortune.

When Jeremy Brett as Holmes is in this, he is superb (that first scene with Watson, and following with Mortimer; the scene in the hut; and - as so often in this series - an ambivalent attitude to the lady in distress). There was no finer interpreter of Holmes and this film, around halfway into the series, gives him a number of scenes to put across that tortured, mischevious genius.

As a completist, I'm glad to see this at last. It has the look and feel of the other episodes (the camerawork was always superb with its plethora of odd angles, reflections, and close-ups) and is perhaps the best version of 'The Hound'. Perhaps it is just simply below Conan Doyle's best, and viewers expect more than the material can give.

Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke eclipse all others in their portrayal of Holmes and Watson. This is the jewel in the crown of their adventures and it is a well crafted story. I never tire of it.

Easily my favorite and easily the best Sherlock Holmes interpretation. I have seen many Sherlock Holmes shows, films, etc. but this is staggeringly accurate and spot on. I love this film and it is so faithful to the source material while introducing some interesting things. The acting of course is sensational with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke as Holmes and Watson.

I highly recommend this film and this canon of Sherlock Holmes to any fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's material. Other great films/series in the same universe and with Brett and Hardwicke would be The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, Masterpiece Mystery, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes.

There have been many film versions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most popular detective story "The Hound of the Baskervilles." Among the most well known are the 1939 film with Basil Rathbone, the 1959 film with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and the 1983 film with Ian Richardson. My first response to this Granada version after watching it on PBS over two nights was rather ho-hum, but I grew to love Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes and the Granada series. I soon decided to give it another viewing. After a second look, I now consider it to be a strong production.

As with the original novel, Sherlock Holmes is absent a majority of the time (though never far from the narrative), making Brett's performance less prominent. When Holmes does return to the story in the last act, Brett shines. However, the major achievement of this adaptation is it's ability to maintain interest in the story despite Holme's absence. This is due to Edward Hardwicke's excellent performance as Dr. Watson, along with Kristoffer Tabori's likable performance as Sir Henry Baskerville. Other fine performances that help make it work are Neil Duncan as Dr. Mortimer, and James Faulkner as Stapleton.

We don't see much of the Hound – it is shown sparingly, but it too often resembles a man in a rubber suit or a big dog with glowing paint on it. As an 80's British TV production lacking a big Hollywood budget, it is not going to have the special effects of Stan Winston. Ultimately, the Hound is never truly terrifying, even though the violence that is suggested can be disturbing.

This feature film is rich in the visual atmosphere that fans come to expect from the Granada series. The producers paid close attention to detail to achieve the look and feel that Conan Doyle was trying to create. The meticulous sets, costumes, props, and location work capture the Victorian period. The music is evocative and works well with the content. The direction by Brian Mills is very competent and the film moves at a good pace.

The dramatization by T.R. Bowen (who wrote many episodes for the Granada series) captures the multi-textured nature of the story and the subplots, supporting characters and setting. It really isn't about the Hound, but the way in which the perpetrator uses it as a local legend to frighten, to confuse, and to kill. It is engrossing from beginning to end without losing focus, which is a tribute given the story's complexity. My only serious quibble is that the climax is somewhat rushed.

This adaptation might not be the best, but remains a very competent, meticulous adaptation. Those expecting suspense and horror that the original novel created will be let down, even though it is more faithful than any other version. Yet, it is enjoyable mainly from the strength of the original story, production values, and a quality cast led by the magnificent Jeremy Brett. The only Sherlock Holmes film from Granada that might surpass it, is "The Sign of Four."

A solid interpretation of THOTB done for the superb Granada series. The foremost reasons to watch this are: Jeremy Brett, surely the definitive Holmes of his generation; Edward Hardwicke's wonderful interpretation of Dr. Watson (you can actually believe him as a doctor, unlike most portrayals of Watson as Moronic Sidekick, getting his foot stuck in a mop bucket), and some good location shooting on the moors, so the whole thing doesn't feel studio-bound. That alone ranks it level with the Rathbone version. But there's not much else to get excited about, which is a shame. The script suffers from unnecessary monkeying, the supporting cast is fairly bland, with the exception of Kristoffer Tabori, who makes a likable Sir Henry Baskerville, and is a good scene partner with Edward Hardwicke through the middle section of the film. The hound in this one is pretty lame; by now special effects should have been better. They saved money by not recreating the Sir Hugo legend and by changing the novel's ending, removing Lestrade's eleventh hour appearance and substituting Dr. Mortimer. I'd forgive that if they had spent the money on the hound, but it's basically no different than in the 1939 and 1959 versions, just a big dog, except that it glows in the dark via some kind of post-production green Ghostbusters effect in two shots, then it doesn't glow for two or three shots, then it's back to glowing in two shots. All this is during the attack on Sir Henry, so it doesn't exactly work. Still and all, it has Jeremy Brett in it, and that makes it worth a look.

I think I was ten when I first read this novel. It was fascinating, brilliant and exciting,it became one of my favourites from Conan Doyle.I really liked the Granada version of it and the Granada Holmes series too.The studio fulfilled a hard task by remaining faithful to the original stories, and the result is:many-many fans of the series all over the world. But the success mostly depended on the wonderful cast. For me Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke were not playing Holmes and Watson, they simply identified themselves with the characters.They share a unique, noble friendship which you cannot find in today's movies.Though Holmes is sometimes rude and impatient with Watson, you can always sense this deep sympathy between them.Brett's Holmes is a cool, elegant and eccentric detective, master of some martial arts, who has all-embracing knowledge.He calls his method deduction: he examines everything thoroughly and completes the puzzle.It is really sad that Jeremy Brett died and the series had to be ended. I liked his Holmes very much. I read many interviews with him and these show a charming, friendly man with a great sense of humor (and he was handsome too!). Thank you very much, Granada Studios. And above all: thank you, Mr. Brett.

There were some minor differences between this story and the original, but aside from the Tom Baker version, this one is closest to the original story, and I have seen many of them. Some of the omissions were of course due to time considerations, although in the original, Dr Mortimer was not with Watson when they were looking for "the man upon the tor" whom Watson had noticed earlier. Also, some of the items were out of sequence. But overall, a very faithful adaptation of the original story.

Being a big fan of S.H. stories both in screen and paper, I admired this edition of the, dare say, best S.H. long story, because of the stunning atmosphere and setting. Jeremy Brett is the true example of how Holmes should be portrayed on screen, but this rendition of Watson by Hardwicke compared to the great David Burke brings a big disappointment.

Could be a 9/10, possibly a 10 as it goes for Sherlock Holmes adaptations but the nature of the story sadly makes Watson the protagonist this time.With this Watson, a 7/10 is a fair grade.

"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.