Michael_Elliott 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.

bensonmum2 I've seen a number of different film adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles, so I thought I might enjoy a spoof of this familiar story. Also, I've seen some of the other work Peter Cook and Dudley Moore did together and thought they might have a chance at success with such a project. My reaction, well if you've been on IMDb for any length of time, you've probably seen the well thought out response "It Sux" when someone is asked about their opinion on a given film. Well, "It Sux" pretty well sums up my feelings to the abomination that is The Hound of the Baskervilles. It is a complete waste of time and effort. I can't imagine how two talented individuals like Cook and Moore could have concocted such a disaster of a film. It's nothing short of a chore to sit through the thing. It's the complete opposite of funny. In addition to Cook and Moore, there's a good cast assembled including Joan Greenwood, Denholm Elliot, Hugh Griffith, and the usually entertaining Terry-Thomas. I actually started to feel embarrassed for these talented actors. What were they thinking? And where in the world did the scenes taken from The Exorcist come from? I don't remember any pea soup spitting in Doyle's original work.I actually bought The Hound of the Baskervilles on DVD. I'm glad it only set me back $3, because the 2/10 I've rated the movie may actually be overstating things a bit.

tom farrell 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.

Dock-Ock The Hound of the Baskervilles is never realises its comedy potential as a vehicle for Dudley Moore and Peter Cook. However, it is an hillarious little piece in the Carry On mode, and that is its blessing and its curse. When its bad its awful, but it still has the ability to milk one or two belly laughs. Fans of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle will probably love it because it both sends up Doyles Holmes and Watson and is an affectionate tribute to their worlds. Were the movie falls flat is that the too many ideas are rather lacklusterly handled by Andy Warhol veteren Paul Morrissey. You rather wish the film had been directed by a heavy weight like Richard Lester or Blake Edwards or Cook and Moore themselves. At times the movie doesn't know whether it wants to be Monty Python smart or Carry On Corny, and so alot of the ideas that worked brilliantly on Cook and Moores Behind/Beyond the Fringe Days and Not Only But Also dont work here. What is fairly noticeable about this film is the growing talent and enthusiasm of Dudley Moore as a screen prescence. He has at this point broke free the comedy chains enforced by Peter Cooks talent and his confidence dances off the screen. His silent movie/Chaplin/Laurel and Hardy/Keaton tribute usical score is wondeful too. He is genuinely hillarious with his over the top welsh accent as Watson and cripplingly funny playing Holmes's mother. In all honesty it is Dudley who makes the film work. Dudley holds his own against British comedy greats such as Kenneth Williams(brilliant in the film), Terry-Thomas and Spike Milligan. Peter Cook is quite good as Sherlock Holmes, certainly looks the part and given the chance would have made a very good Holmes in a better movie. But it's Dudleys film, he is the one who makes it work, and things where abi=out to get very interesting for him over the next decade.