The Hound of the Baskervilles

I remember even the TV promo for this turkey. Not only did it feature a white haired Sherlock Holmes, but a boring over the top Dr. Watson.The mystery as handled badly and the most amazing part of it all was that was a pilot to a rotating series of detective characters including Ross Martin as Charlie Chan. I m glad that never happened and I am a hardcore Sherlock Holmes fan. For the record, Peter Crushing and Nigel Stock are the very best of Holmes and Watson ever... even better than Basil and Nigel, or Jeremy Brett and either of his Watsons. Just saying.

Having said all of that, I would Ike to own a DVD of the film just because I am a completist..Maybe even a bit of a glutton for punishment.

Not a classic to be sure, but a decent TV movie-of-the-week adaptation of the oft-filmed Conan Doyle novel. Although it departs somewhat from the book, all the essential elements of the story are there. The cast does its best, and Granger makes an interesting Holmes. It would have been nice to have seen him as the Great Detective in other movies; he really was a class act. As noted by others, Bernard Fox is a more than adequate Dr. Watson. The costumes and sets are also good for a made-for-TV production of this era. But that music! You'd think that with the entire Universal Studios library of music at their disposal, the producers could have chosen more appropriate themes and cues!

At about 72 minutes, this brief version of a classic mystery makes an enjoyable time-filler; suitable for family viewing.

This is clearly the most popular Sherlock Holmes adventure, since it is the one most actors choose in order to showcase their suitability for the role (notably Basil Rathbone at Universal and Peter Cushing for Hammer) and was even plundered for spoofing purposes in 1978! With this in mind, it is small wonder that Stewart Granger, too, has turned up in an adaptation; the end result, however, was very much disliked by Leonard Maltin – rating it 'Below Average' and accorded the unenviable epithet "for masochists only"! Still, all things considered, its main fault is that of being thoroughly superfluous – with no new take on the narrative (apart from presenting us with the first white-haired Holmes!) and, worse, ripping off Dr. Watson's buffoonish characterization straight from Nigel Bruce! If anything, the film-makers have managed to recruit a serviceable cast (including a fine Anthony Zerbe as a limping and henpecked{!} doctor, a wasted Jane Merrow and Sally Ann Howes, a grumpy John Williams, and a surprisingly restrained William Shatner in a dual role), while the titular beast looks vicious enough (unlike some of the better versions, admittedly!) – what is more, this is certainly proof that, in some cases, the plot really is the thing (as the saying goes)...

...And that's an aspect of the set design- one tiny thing, mind you- the background painting of St Paul's Cathedral behind Baker Street, that gives the impression that Holmes lives on a hill overlooking London. It's irrelevant to most people, but for me that's a nugget of accidental genius that sums up how I feel about Holmes... the watchful guardian etc etc.

Apart from that, yes it's crap.

I beg to differ. This production was by far the best of the films made of this story. I did not laugh at all. In fact I would like to own a VHS or a DVD of this film, if possible!

I loved all the movies featuring Stewart Granger, he was a captivating star! I also liked the actor Ian Ireland, who played Sir Henry. The photography was very good and the film created an ambiance/mood befitting this mystery.

Despite the fact that it has been many years since I have seen it and I am not really able to point out specific details, I can safely say that this was an entertaining movie.