Watch The Hound of the Baskervilles For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Great Film overall

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Being a big fan of S.H. stories both in screen and paper, I admired this edition of the, dare say, best S.H. long story, because of the stunning atmosphere and setting. Jeremy Brett is the true example of how Holmes should be portrayed on screen, but this rendition of Watson by Hardwicke compared to the great David Burke brings a big disappointment. Could be a 9/10, possibly a 10 as it goes for Sherlock Holmes adaptations but the nature of the story sadly makes Watson the protagonist this time.With this Watson, a 7/10 is a fair grade.

Holmes purists may argue, but I've always thought that the best introduction one can have to Sherlock Holmes is to read or watch The Hound Of The Baskervilles. For one thing Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a full novel here as opposed to his short stories. So you get a lot of character development of Holmes and his companion and chronicler Dr. John Watson. The BBC series of having Jeremy Brett as Holmes and Edward Hardwicke as Watson doing every single Holmes story is a landmark in television. It should be because Sherlock Holmes is eternally popular.As good as the Basil Rathbone series was at Universal Pictures it was a B film series with values befitting it. The BBC took great care in recreating Victorian England in this series.Broken down to its simplest form the plot is that there is a legend about the titled Baskervilles involving a gigantic hound from hell who has caused several generations of Baskervilles to come to untimely ends. Someone in this story is very carefully taking advantage of the legend to take vengeance on the family for a slight and to inherit the Baskerville estate, a considerable one by Victorian standards.The current heir is Kristoffer Tabori arrived from America and it's clear someone's out to get him. For most of the time Tabori has Dr. Watson as his bodyguard. Holmes is around, but he's undercover working disguises so he can get a clear picture of the people around.The climax with Tabori struggling against the giant hell hound will send shivers up your spine. Brett and Hardwicke are as suited for their parts as Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce with Hardwicke a more accurate Watson than the pudding headed Nigel Bruce.A wonderful production of one of the all time great mysteries in literature.

This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles is the third I've seen in the past week or so. It's also a first time viewing for me. My initial reaction – I'm somewhat disappointed based on many of the reviews I've read on IMDb. While I enjoyed it much more than the 1978 abomination, I much preferred the 1983 version – also a TV movie. There's little doubt that Jeremy Brett makes a fine Sherlock Holmes (though having grown up with Rathbone, he gets my vote for the best) and Edward Hardwicke wisely plays Watson less the bumbling fool. The rest of the actors are at least adequate, though I thought Fiona Gillies was horribly miscast as Beryl. The authentic looking locations, both moors and other sets, add a lot to the production. But the weakness in the film is in its direction and pacing. Had director Brian Mills kept things moving at a better pace, it might have been more enjoyable effort. As it is, there are some stretches that are difficult to get through. After a nice start and a decent enough third act (although it did feel a bit rushed), the middle portion of the movie grinds to a halt. Finally, who thought it would be a good idea to color the hound a glowing green color in post production? It reminded me of something you might see from a poverty row studio of the 1940s.

I am a great fan of the Granada television series starring Jeremy Brett. I have all of the episodes taped, with the Mystery commentaries by Vincent Price. Most of these are gems. There is no doubt in my mind who the best portrayer of Holmes is: Brett, hands down. I have read and taught this story so many times, so when I saw it was next on the docket, I was so thrilled. Unfortunately, it seemed to be a weak entry in the series. If this series is attempting to be true to the works of Conan-Doyle, why doe they once again play fast and loose with characters and plot. Why do they forsake the original story of Sir Hugo Baskerville? Why are some of the significant characters missing. I own at least 12 versions of this story on video, and not one of them follows the plot of the original story. Normally, my belief is that we are dealing with two different media, the silver screen and the printed page. However, when using a novella such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice plot elements and personalities. A few years later, I saw another version on Public Television. A nicely told story, very violent, like this story is. But, once again, a bunch of implanted gobbledygook. This one tries hard to follow the general plot, but it doesn't work. One critic complains about the lack of screen time for Holmes. That's a part of the plot. He is working behind the scenes. Once he arrives in Dartmoor, he has a great deal of screen time. It's not awful, but we had Jeremy Brett at his best; why not make a script that would go down in history.