Pluskylang Great Film overall

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Michael_Elliott Hound of the Baskervilles, The (1983) *** (out of 4) Made-for-TV version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic novel has Ian Richardson playing Holmes, Donald Churchill as Watson, Denholm Elliott as Dr. Mortimer and Martin Shaw as Henry Baskerville. I believe this here was my fifth version that I've seen of this novel and I plan on going through all of them for no better reason than to just be a completest. I was bit nervous going into this one but it turned out to be one of the more impressive ones and with a little editing it might have turned out to be the best. From what I've read from Holmes experts, this novel has never been told in a great fashion so perhaps someone in the future will do it justice. This here tries and comes close but a few things needed to be dropped or changed. One thing that should have been changed was the green tint around the murderous dog. There are a couple good shots of people being hunted by the dog yet all atmosphere and tension are lost when you see the green tint around the beast. Another thing that could have been changed was the actual running time as 101-minutes was just a bit too much here. Both Richardson and Churchill are good in their roles but I do wonder if the director sat them down to watch the Rathbone/Bruce entries because there are a few times where it seems like the actors are trying to impersonate the previous masters. With that said, I found both to be entertaining in their roles with Richardson really standing out and making an intelligent Holmes. It's always important that whoever is playing Holmes come off as intelligent and Richardson certainly does that here and he makes the story fun to go through no matter how many times you've seen it. I also enjoyed Elliott in the role of Mortimer and Edward Judd is good as Barrymore. I wasn't too impressed with Shaw as he comes off too much like a Texas redneck. Director Hickox does a very good job at building up tension and making a thick atmosphere, which are two important factors to this story. Another major plus is that we have a few new sequences including a clip of Mortimer telling how the Baskerville's became cursed and an alternate take on the murder attempt of Henry. Both sequences are quite good and add to the film.

t_rex_td Probably my favorite version of the Holmes novel. Ian Richardson makes a great Sherlock Holmes, who (like Rathbone) strongly resembles the earlier drawings of Holmes. It's true that Richardson's Holmes is much nicer than the rude and moody Holmes of the novels, but I don't really mind it. Donald Churchill makes a good Watson, seems like a buffoon at times, but not nearly as much as Nigel Bruce. A treat to see in movie are RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK actors Denholm Elliot as Dr. Mortimer and Ronald Lacey as Inspector Lestrade, who was not in the novel, but a nice addition. The hound in the movie, is the best I've seen. Large black, and glowing, definitely closer to the description in the book than probably any other movie has gotten. This along with the Rathbone version are my favorite versions. I don't understand why so many people liked the Granada version. Even though it was closer to the book, it was rather dull and poorly directed I thought. The hound it the Granada version was a downright disappoint, nowhere near as good as the one in this one. I haven't seen the Richard Roxburgh version. Ill probably review that when i can.

Thunderdodger Without doubt the best incarnation of this often repeated Sherlock Holmes story. Later versions don't come close to this one. Very well filmed, dark & suspenseful with well chosen locations & well thought out set pieces, particularly the hound chases & the final showdown in the mire. Sets are very well designed & filmed for a picture of this era, real effort has gone into this part of it - it actually looks like the outdoor scenes are really outdoors!Ian Richardson excels as Holmes & Martin Shaw is an excellent Henry Baskerville. The supporting roles are also very well cast, with an excellent British line up of players, Denholm Elliot making a fine Dr. Mortimer & Brian Blessed a memorable Geoffrey Lyons.I would also recommend watching "The Sign of Four", which was made around the same time with Ian Richardson again playing Holmes. Shame that "Study in Scarlet" & "Valley of Fear" were not made as part of the same series.

boomcoach This film obviously takes its casting from the portrayals of Holmes and Watson by Rathbone and Bruce, rather than from the book. Richardson is smarmy, jovial and cheery, with none of Rathbone's cold precision and sharpness. Churchill is more idiotic as Watson than even Nigel Bruce could manage. An insipid and clueless Inspector LeStrade is added for no other reason, apparently, than the writer's feeling that a Holmes story needed him.The sets looked good. Some of the additional characters are quite well done (with the exception of the butler and his wife, who sleepwalk through their lines.)This film pales next to almost any of the other film adaptations of Hound. The best is the Rathbone/Bruce version. The Hammer films version gives us Peter Cushing as an excellent Holmes surrounded by those lovely Hammer sets.The 1988 Jeremy Brett TV film suffers from being filmed on a TV budget, but gives us what is probably the most faithful rendition of Holmes and Watson, with Watson coming off as Holmes' strong right hand, rather than as a buffoon. Watch any and/or all of these, but only watch this version if you have run out of other versions to watch.