The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983)

The Hound of the Baskervilles is probably the most well-known Sherlock Holmes tale. There have been so many adaptations, with some very good (1988 Brett and 1959 Cushing) and some a little dull (2002 Roxburgh), but the story is a very gripping one so its always enjoyable to see. Yet the 1983 version is easily one of the better efforts.The premise is pretty much the same as the novel. Sir Henry Baskerville arrives in England to inherit the estate of his uncle Sir Charles, who died mysteriously. Dr. Mortimer comes to Holmes with the legend of a demonic hound that has plagued the Baskervilles for many generations, with Holmes deciding to join the case in belief that someone or something is threatening Sir Henry's life. There are some liberties taken and little changes (the addition of Geoffrey Lyons, more of Lestrade and a little more action in the climax). None of these things distract from the story and are actually welcomed in certain places.Ian Richardson makes Holmes more upbeat and humorous than usual, but he does a fantastic job. He looks the part and handles the dialogue perfectly, whilst nicely balancing wit and seriousness. It is a shame he only got to play Holmes twice. Sadly, Donald Churchill goes a down the Nigel Bruce way of playing Watson. He comes off as slow- minded and clumsy, the opposite of what Watson should be. It does hurt things a bit as Watson is the main protagonist here, but he does have some nice moments and a warmth that never makes him uninteresting.The support is very solid. Denholm Elliot is very good as a more soft spoken and on edge Mortimer, seeming intelligent and forgetful. Martin Shaw is a little bland as Sir Henry, the accent is also a little faulty, but he does a decent enough job. Nicholas Clay is brilliant as Stapleton, playing up his eccentric side to good effect and keeping the character mysterious. Glynis Barber is fine as Beryl. Brian Blessed and Ronald Lacey are excellent as usual, with Eleanor Bron and Edward Judd perfectly playing the Barrymore's.The production values are truly excellent. The picture looks great considering its made for TV. The locations used are perfect, the moors looks beautiful of a day and haunting of a night. Even the sets look very authentic and don't take anything away from the film. The soundtrack is also superb, balancing sweeping tones with quiet creepy moments. The atmosphere is another strong point, this being probably the creepiest version of the Hound. The origins of the legend, the chilling light upon the moor and event parts of the climax are perfect in crafting the scary tone. The hound itself is one of the best, it looks downright terrifying and the phosphorus glow adds to the spectral horror. The more action added to the climax is actually quite welcomed and adds more excitement to the ending. It might not be a perfect adaption, but this version of the Hound profits from some great actors, a wonderful look and strong atmosphere to be one of the best versions of the classic story.

Having watched the film I had to check the IDMB reviews..and, Yes, I agree, overall an enjoyable film but am I the only one to notice that Martin Shaws performance has been dubbed? Listen and watch closely. Certainly not his voice, (even allowing for an American accent,) and the lip sync is slightly out on occasions.However this only detracts slightly from the film.Ian Richardson certainly holds the whole thing together with a fine performance. The village scenes are possibly over populated but I get the feeling that the production is aimed also at the American market and therefore some aspects of English country life have been over emphasised to fall in line with the American view of our country.

What a stunningly BEAUTIFUL movie!!! By far the most visually sumptuous version of this often-filmed story, and between the directing and editing, one of the most exciting. Although they strayed from the book in a few places, mostly adding new things rather than leaving things out, it generally follows the story. All the new additions are balanced out by simplifying ("dumbing down"?) the dialog (MOSTLY obvious if you happen to watch it back-to-back with other versions) and TIGHT editing. There's hardly a casual entry shot anywhere in the film. Like the "007" movies, characters don't walk into a room, CUT!, they're already there and talking. Someone complained this was "too long", yet it feels CRAMMED with so much detail, I almost wish it were at least 15 minutes longer.Ian Richardson, in retrospect, reminds me of an older version of Ronald Howard's Holmes-- lively, impish, full of energy and humor. Donald Churchill (inexplicably replacing David Healy from the previous Richardson film) seems to be doing a somewhat laid-back Nigel Bruce impression. Denholm Elliot is delightfully "amiable" (a word Holmes uses to describe him) as Dr. Mortimer. Edward Judd (who I recall from THE NEW AVENGERS episode "TO CATCH A RAT") is the butler Barrymore, while Eleanor Bron ("Ahme" from HELP!) is his wife. Stapleton is played by Nicholas Clay, who'd been "Lancelot" in John Boorman's Excalibur! Laura Lyons (a character who only appears in certain versions, including this one, Tom Baker's and Jeremy Brett's) is played by Connie Booth (from FAWLTY TOWERS) while her husband, not seen in any other version, is the larger-than-life booming figure of Brian Blessed. His addition gives the film an extra suspect and red herring.This is simply an incredible movie to watch, although I do feel Tom Baker had a MUCH better script (though much poorer budget-- NOBODY mentions his, everybody goes on about Jeremy Brett's, which was SO BADLY directed it was a crime!). Continuing with comparisons, I was amazed some years ago when I decided the Basil Rathbone version, overall, was simply the "BEST FILM", although Peter Cushing's is incredibly fun to watch on its own merits (just as his version of Dracula also was-- no surprise, same director there).I've seen SEVERAL versions of HOUND since this, and several others I haven't mentioned before this, but NONE of them come anywhere close to this (or Rathbone, or Cushing, or EVEN Baker!!).Oh yes, and the ending, where Holmes reveals to Sir Henry exactly who Beryl really is, proves to be one of the best-written scenes in the film. Intelligent, and sympathetic. Wonderful piece of work!

It really is a disaster that only SIGN and HOUN were filmed with Ian Richardson. No other has been portraying Holmes in such a smooth and witty way - not even Rathbone whom I always considered a bit too perfect and too cold. The setting is a worthy one and the costumes in the Hound of the Baskervilles just as in Sign of the Four are brilliant and the acting of all the characters is quite convincing. Unfortunately Watson is a shade too Brucian. I think it is a pity that some characters like Arthur Frankland were left out in the film and the situation of the latter's daughter, Mrs Lyons (beautifully portrayed by Connie Booth of `Fawlty Towers' fame) was changed. Yet the addition of the character Geoffrey Lyons is of interest. Brian Blessed gives his wife a real hard time and a spot of trouble to Holmes and Lestrade. Denholm Elliot is a nice choice as Mortimer as are Shaw and Clay in their roles. The telling of the legend in the beginning is excellently done, by the way and leaves nothing to wish for. 9 out of 10.