Watch The Hound of the Baskervilles For Free

Waste of Money.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Of all the Hound renditions, this one is probably the most precise, and yet it still has to play with Conan-Doyle's wonderful plot. Most of the plot elements are in place, but they had to misuse characters such as Laura Lyons and create an abusive husband, an artist living in the area. Also, they couldn't resist the sappy ending, with Sir Henry and Beryl immediately joining hands. The other issue that I take with virtually every incarnation of this epic is he treatment of Watson. Remember, he is a wise enough soul to write the exploits of Holmes for publication. Once again, he's portrayed as a bit of a buffoon. Let's blame Nigel Bruce for that, one of the worst of the Watsons (though the one first thought of when we look back on our viewing). The two men who portrayed him in the Jeremy Brett episodes captured him so much better. The acting here is OK. Richardson does a pretty good job with the great sleuth. Henry is dull and uninteresting. Stapleton was surprisingly good. Someday, someone will trust the story--unfortunately, I may not live that long.

Probably my favorite version of the Holmes novel. Ian Richardson makes a great Sherlock Holmes, who (like Rathbone) strongly resembles the earlier drawings of Holmes. It's true that Richardson's Holmes is much nicer than the rude and moody Holmes of the novels, but I don't really mind it. Donald Churchill makes a good Watson, seems like a buffoon at times, but not nearly as much as Nigel Bruce. A treat to see in movie are RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK actors Denholm Elliot as Dr. Mortimer and Ronald Lacey as Inspector Lestrade, who was not in the novel, but a nice addition. The hound in the movie, is the best I've seen. Large black, and glowing, definitely closer to the description in the book than probably any other movie has gotten. This along with the Rathbone version are my favorite versions. I don't understand why so many people liked the Granada version. Even though it was closer to the book, it was rather dull and poorly directed I thought. The hound it the Granada version was a downright disappoint, nowhere near as good as the one in this one. I haven't seen the Richard Roxburgh version. Ill probably review that when i can.

Without doubt the best incarnation of this often repeated Sherlock Holmes story. Later versions don't come close to this one. Very well filmed, dark & suspenseful with well chosen locations & well thought out set pieces, particularly the hound chases & the final showdown in the mire. Sets are very well designed & filmed for a picture of this era, real effort has gone into this part of it - it actually looks like the outdoor scenes are really outdoors!Ian Richardson excels as Holmes & Martin Shaw is an excellent Henry Baskerville. The supporting roles are also very well cast, with an excellent British line up of players, Denholm Elliot making a fine Dr. Mortimer & Brian Blessed a memorable Geoffrey Lyons.I would also recommend watching "The Sign of Four", which was made around the same time with Ian Richardson again playing Holmes. Shame that "Study in Scarlet" & "Valley of Fear" were not made as part of the same series.

Besides the Hammer version of 1959 (or even MURDER BY DECREE about Jack the Ripper) this is one of the more scarier Holmes movies ever made. Fog-shrouded moors and spectral killer dogs mix with the usual detective suspense to make this way better than most movies that are made for television.