The Hound of the Baskervilles

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!!!

Though some may find Holmes's long stretches of absence disappointing in this adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles (the most celebrated of all Conan Doyle tales), it should be understood that these absences are in keeping with the original novel. Watson does much of the footwork here, and is separated from Holmes for most of the story. And since Watson was the man who penned the memoirs, he recorded his own experiences. When he was away from Holmes, he could not divine what Holmes was doing, and would only record Holmes's own account of his actions during their separation once they'd been reunited. So, in this respect, this version remains more faithful to the original story than any other. There is, after all, tremendous pressure to pack as much Sherlock Holmes as one can into what is ostensibly a Sherlock Holmes film. It takes guts to keep him out of the picture for as long as this adaptation does...but this adaptation shows its courage in staying true to the text, even if it means leaving Sherlock Holmes out of it, for the most part.

Really, this was the only one of the Granada feature films that could have been made at this time, as Jeremy Brett was (quite noticeably) ill and could not have taken part in a two hour film in which Holmes was on the main stage...the strain would have been too much. As always, Brett's Holmes (when he's around) is a remarkable performance, and Hardwicke's Watson proves yet again why he was a more-than-suitable replacement for David Burke. Overall, a fine adaptation of Sherlock Holmes's most famous adventure. This and, to a lesser extent, the 1983 television version with Ian Richardson are, to my mind, the definitive Hounds.

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.

Sherlock (Jeremy Brett) and Watson (Edward Hardwicke) are hired by Doctor Mortimer (Neal Duncan) for the investigation a killing , the deceased Sr. Baskerville , who has been inherited by his brother Sir Henry (Kristoffer Tabori) . Watson goes to the mansion , there are the servants (Ronald Pickup) and he meets Stapleton (James Faulkner) and his sister . Meanwhile , an inmate has escaped and on the moors sounds the barking a savage beast .

This is an excellent film of the splendid Sherlock Holmes/Jeremy Brett TV series . It's a genuine ripping yarn with much suspense and intrigue . The film gets mystery , tension , detective action and packs an exciting deal of outstanding surprises with great lots of fun , despite being a known story . Jeremy Brett's magnificent interpretation , although the best Sherlock is forever Basil Rathbone . Brett plays as Holmes as an intelligent , obstinate , broody , pipesmoking sleuth , his acting is similar to Peter Cushing in television or Nicol Williamson (Seven-per-cent-solution) or Christopher Plummer (Murder by decree) in cinema . Here Dr. Watson isn't a botcher , bungler or clumsy partner usually incarnated by Nigel Bruce , but a cunning and astute pal well incarnated by Edward Hardwicke who even achieved recently success as co-protagonist in Oliver Twist (by Roman Polanski) . The movie has a creepy as well as eerie atmosphere , specially when is developed on the moors where lives the fearful giant beast ; besides , the London streets and 223 Baker Street house are well designed . The motion picture was well directed by Peter Hammond .

Other versions about this notorious novel are the followings : 1939 classy recounting by Sidney Landfield with Richard Greene , Basil Rathbone , Nigel Bruce , Lionel Atwill , Wendy Barrie ; 1959 by Terence Fisher with Peter Cushing , Andre Morell and Christopher Lee ; 1977 spoof rendition by Paul Morissey with Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore ; 1983 by Douglas Hickox with Ian Richardson and Donald Churchill ; 2000 TV by Rodney Gibbons with Matt Frewer and Kenneth Welsh , 2002 retelling with Richard Roxbough and Richard Hart , among others .

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.