The Hound of the Baskervilles

This is the umpteenth version of a popular Conan Doyle mystery novel, featuring the legendary Sherlock Holmes and his assistant Watson. Unfortunately, this is the poorest version of the story of the lot, with terribly miscast actors struggling to contend with an amateurish script. Shatner and Zerbe in particular look misplaced amid the period trappings, but even Granger (as Holmes) doesn't seem to fit, in spite of his classical English accent.Even the music for the movie is plundered from Cape Fear. If you want to see a good Sherlock Holmes movie, stick with the Basil Rathbone series.... this is the pits!

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!

One of my sci-fi/horror/fantasy reviews written 50 years ago: Directed by Barry Crane; Produced by Stanley Kallis, Executive Producer: Richard Irving, for Universal TV, broadcast by ABC-TV. Screenplay by Robert E. Thompson; Photography by Harry Wolf; Edited by Bill Mosher; Special Photographic Effects by Albert Whitlock. Starring: Stewart Granger, Bernard Fox, Anthony Zerbe, William Shatner, Sally Ann Howes, Jane Merrow, Ian Ireland and John Williams.

Embarrassing TV movie condensed to fit the 90-minute time slot by the latterday "Mission: Impossible" production team is poor in every respect: offensively stupid musical score, stinko obvious backlot sets, phony British accents and poor acting, plus Fox's sickening Nigel Bruce imitation. This movie epitomizes the condescending, insincere attitude toward filmmaking, remakes and the popular horror genre.

...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.

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.