Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Quite a solid rendition of the quintessential Sherlock Holmes case as TV movies go, though clearly still not a patch on either the 1939 Fox or 1959 Hammer big-screen versions. I liked Ian Richardson better here than in the same year's THE SIGN OF FOUR – perhaps because his tendency to go over-the-top gets channeled this time around through Holmes' own penchant for disguise! Even the rapport with Dr. Watson (a different actor from his subsequent effort) seems to be more congenial – if still basically a comic foil a' la Nigel Bruce. Again, the rest of the cast list is peppered with established performers: Martin Shaw (amusingly decked-out in Texan attire!), Nicholas Clay (in the proverbial dual role at the core of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic tale), Denholm Elliott (playing a different role to the one he had had in the 1978 spoof), Ronald Lacey (as Inspector Lestrade), Brian Blessed (though his gruffness borders on caricature!), Connie Booth (Mrs. John Cleese!), Edward Judd (nearly unrecognizable) and Eleanor Bron. The titular creature, too, with its constantly radiant eyes and at, one point, his entire frame appears to glow, was presumably envisaged as the typical movie monster (let us not forget there were at least two 'hell hound' movies some years previously – one of which I should be checking out soon, incidentally – while the Stephen King adaptation CUJO was released the same year). That said, director Hickox was well-versed in this sort of thing, and he handles proceedings with customary professionalism (albeit, understandably, on a small scale). This is now the seventh version of the tale that I have watched – 1939, 1959, 1968, 1972, 1978 and 2002 – and, for what it is worth, there are still a few out there which I would not mind checking out in the long run...

I watched this movie on the television the other day. I am a great Sherlock Holmes fan and have read all the stories several times. This film is not bad. You get the usual irritating plot changes and extra characters thrown in but overall they keep to the original story pretty well. Ian Richardson gives a competent if rather weak performance as Holmes but Donald Churchill is dreadful as Watson. Unfortunately he tries to do a Nigel Bruce impression and the result is terrible to watch. There is none of the humour and charm that Nigel Bruce brought to the role; however much you hate his version of Watson. The rest of the cast are pretty competent. Martin Shaw is okay as Sir Henry. I am not sure what Ronald Lacey and Brian Blessed are doing in the movie but Ronald Lacey (one of my favourite actors) is pretty amusing and brings a welcome bit of light relief to a pretty dour movie. I think Stapleton - like Moriarty - is one of the most difficult villains to portray in film because the evil is all hidden. Nicholas Clay is no worse than many others. All in all strictly one for Sherlock Holmes fans I think.

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.

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.