The Hound of the Baskervilles

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.