Leofwine_draca This great-looking British TV movie has an impressive cast list and probably the most authentic-looking moors seen in a HOUND adaptation, but otherwise is unexpectedly flat and dull in tone. My main question has to be: why bother remaking a story which has already been told - sometimes excellently - so many times before? The only reason would be to take the story in interesting, different directions, but this mainly sticks to the book and plods along to an unimpressive conclusion.While the costumes, sets, music, and scenery are fine, the rather surprisingly bland direction by Douglas Hickox (THEATRE OF BLOOD) serves to diminish the interest of many moments, only picking up occasionally for a spot of action. The casting is fine but nobody really excels in their role, or alternatively sticks in the memory. Ian Richardson physically looks the part of Holmes, yet while his acting methods are fine, he displays little of Rathbone's natural charisma. Donald Churchill is a worthy successor to Nigel Bruce's Watson, at least, but Martin Shaw looks uncomfortably out-of-place as the American Sir Henry, complete with a dodgy accent and '80s hairdo. It's not the actor you would imagine in the role at all. Elsewhere, there are solid turns from Denholm Elliott (as a nervy - what else? - doctor), Brian Blessed (in big, burly, bearded and barmy persona), Connie Booth (wife of John Cleese and star of FAWLTY TOWERS) and Glynis Barber, which help lend authenticity to the proceedings. Old faces Edward Judd and Ronald Lacey also contribute nice minor roles as a butler and Inspector Lestrade respectively.Although only a television movie, the budget seems to have been rather high for this film, so forget any dry-ice enshrouded set-bound moors of previous versions. Here, it's the real thing, and shots of the isolated expanses of moorland help to create an appropriate atmosphere. Sadly the silly-looking scenes of a dog with a glowing outline rapidly dispel any atmosphere that may have been built up, although some night-time shenanigans and murders help to make up for this. THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is fine enough in itself, but for fans who've already seen Universal's 1939 version or Hammer's 1959 adaptation, the question is... why bother? A well-made but slow-paced and unexciting tale.

nickgodfrey I've seen a few versions of probably Holmes' most famous case, and this one holds up pretty well. Firstly, Ian Richardson as Holmes: he is a different Holmes to Conan Doyle's cold, aloof deduction machine. This Holmes is a lively, happy Holmes and I can't really get on with this portrayal. Richardson is a fine actor but I much prefer Jeremy Brett, Peter Cushing and Basil Rathbone. Next up we have Donald Churchill as Doctor Watson giving possibly the worst performance of all the Watson's. It's certainly the worst performance in the film. Churchill gives a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling performance, in the Nigel Bruce vein but with none of the charm. Bruce and David Burke were far better Watson's. Martin Shaw, TV's Ray Doyle from The Professionals turns up as American Sir Henry Baskerville and he turns in an average performance, mainly due to the fact his whole voice was dubbed (by Eric Roberts, Julia's brother). No idea why this was done. Maybe Shaw's accent wasn't up to scratch but it certainly detracts from his performance. Trusty Brit stalwarts Denholm Eliot (miscast as Dr Mortimer- Mortimer was in his 30's in the novel), Brian Blessed shouting and hollering as Geoffrey Lyons (a character only mentioned by name in the book) and Ronald Lacey as Lestrade all provide good support. Nicholas Clay does a nice turn as the devious Stapleton but Glynis Barber as Beryl Stapleton is appalling. She seems to come from the quivering lip school of acting. The production in this version is particularly good. Impressive photography of the brooding moor and Baskerville Hall plus Douglas Hickox's confident direction are big plus points. Forget the dodgy sets of Baker Street at the beginning and some obvious studio sets of the moor towards the end. Bit of a cop out ending with Sir Henry and Beryl which is different to the book. All in all a pretty good attempt at a classic, not the best but certainly not the worst.

csrothwec Having seen the Rathbone, Cushing and Brett versions, I settled down to watch this expecting a run-of-the-mill, made for TV "quickie" which would be instantly forgettable and just "yet another" rendition of a tale all too frequently told. I was very pleasantly surprised to find a very good production with excellent direction, ensuring that it whisks along at an excellent pace and that the viewer's attention never flags. Some parts of Richardson's portrayal of Holmes do not gel, (especially the ludicrous 'gypsey' scenes), but, overall, I think he does a first rate job and, in my view, exceeds the value of the performances by Rathbone and Cushing, which, while very good in their own day, are now hopelessly dated, (to the point of caricature in the case of Rathbone and virtually ALL of the supporting players in the 1939 version!)Good supporting roles also from Martin Shaw as Baskerville and David Churchill as an entirely credible Watson, avoiding the buffoonery of the Rathbone version but also not the "over-compensation" of the Hardwick portrayal in the Brett version. This latter version, (as with the complete ITV series starring Brett, (which must rate as THE "definitive" version of the Holmes stories on screen, (whether large or small)), must probably maintain its status as the "best" version I have seen to date, BUT the Richardson one is only just behind and, as already said, in terms of overall pace and energy probably exceeds it! A pity we did not see Richardson don the deer stalker more often!

ChrisHawk78 It really is a disaster that only SIGN and HOUN were filmed with Ian Richardson. No other has been portraying Holmes in such a smooth and witty way - not even Rathbone whom I always considered a bit too perfect and too cold. The setting is a worthy one and the costumes in the Hound of the Baskervilles just as in Sign of the Four are brilliant and the acting of all the characters is quite convincing. Unfortunately Watson is a shade too Brucian. I think it is a pity that some characters like Arthur Frankland were left out in the film and the situation of the latter's daughter, Mrs Lyons (beautifully portrayed by Connie Booth of `Fawlty Towers' fame) was changed. Yet the addition of the character Geoffrey Lyons is of interest. Brian Blessed gives his wife a real hard time and a spot of trouble to Holmes and Lestrade. Denholm Elliot is a nice choice as Mortimer as are Shaw and Clay in their roles. The telling of the legend in the beginning is excellently done, by the way and leaves nothing to wish for. 9 out of 10.