El perro de los Baskerville

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.

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!!!

"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.

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.

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.