The Hound of the Baskervilles

I have a great deal of affection for this movie. It's flawed, but it's a hoot! Granger certainly makes a unique and entertaining Holmes. The decision to cast Bernard Fox as Watson was a fabulous move. The cast also includes the always entertaining Anthony Zerbe and William Shatner too! I agree with another reviewer who noted that Holmes living on a hill overlooking London is definitely a nice touch. It truly conjures up the idea of Holmes as a protector of the city. This version of the classic tale deserves it's reputation as a cheap and cheesy TV movie, but it also deserves to be remembered as being hell of a lot of fun! I've had a ball enjoying this one on many occasions. Fun stuff!

...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.

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.

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.

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.