The Hound of the Baskervilles

This adaptation of Conan Doyle's most famous Sherlock Holmes story was made as a TV movie for ABC -- evidently with considerably limited resources. I don't begrudge a film for being made under budget of resource constraints but this "Hound of the Baskervilles" doesn't handle those constraints well. On the whole it has a good number of flaws, none of which is vastly troublesome individually, but which together make it an uninspiring Sherlock Holmes film.

It's a sad victim of needing resources for a story set in a different time and with a wider scope than perfectly standard TV programs circa 1972, and not getting that. As a result there are some distractingly sloppy production decisions, with poorly disguised studio sets doubling for the moor, some scenes obviously dubbed in later, and even paintings used as exteriors and some very obvious CSO/bluescreen representing Watson's reflection in tea set early on. The stock music score is distracting, loud, and almost amusingly inappropriate at times.

Stewart Granger is rather oddly cast as Sherlock Holmes as he does not look the part at all, but that is not in itself a flaw. His acting is adequate for these purposes but it's really rather a one-dimensional performance, mainly slick superiority and not much more. Bernard Fox is a pretty good Watson, traditionally befuddled yet still believable when he does something intelligent.

William Shatner is a very recognizable face "guest starring" (per the credits) in a small role as Stapleton. Jokes aside, I actually think he's a very good actor, and it's nice to see him here. Other performances are generally lackluster, except for Anthony Zerbe as Dr. Mortimer. He started out impressing me as too obviously sinister, but then growing on me in a quiet and eccentrically good performance.

The script of the adaptation is serviceable if very surface-oriented and lacking in much sparkle. This was entertaining enough viewing for its running time, but overall one is left with an impression of a careless production on which not many people really tried very hard; I'm not surprised Watson's obvious hint at sequels to this production in the closing moments was not taken up.

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.

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 is understated! The film does take a lot of liberty with the original story. But not only that. Stewart Granger who might not be a bad actor after all is certainly not a Shelock Holmes. And who in those days would have appointed a person as looking like Mortimer as Medical officer of any district in those days. I mean - why create a mysterious character where there is no need of one. One thing however is remarkable in this case. According to the book Mortimer is "a fellow under thirty". Anthony Zerbe was 36 when this film was made. Still older than the original Mortimer yet younger than Lionel Atwill in the film from '39 who was then 54 or Francis de Wolff who was 46 in ‘59 when Terence Fisher chose to make his film or Denholm Elliot in the '83 version who was then already 61. The Set has been commented on in several critics and there is nothing much to add to this. The costumes are all right, I guess (even if it seems that the whole male population of London was wearing Inverness Capes) but why did Holmes have to wear that ridiculous Bow-Tie in the beginning. One thing however should be mentioned: Bernard Fox. I have not seen any other performances of his but I did like him as Watson. He is not quite the bumbler as in many other Holmes films but has in fact some rather bright moments in this one. Anyway he is not unlike the Paget Watson.

This film is cheap, nasty and very funny. William Shatner at his plank-like best. Why Stuart Grainger ever got involved with this dog, is a mystery of the first order. The sets steal the show, the major laugh coming from the use of old cowboy film sets to represent a Dartmoor village! Too many liberties taken with the original story to mention, but I was not the only one who lost the plot, so did the director.A major insult to Arthur Conan Doyle, but a bloody good chortle for anyone who doesn't take their Holmsian epics too seriously.