The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Perfect cast and a good story

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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...

This 1983 version of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock Holmes' most famous mystery, is a rock solid effort. I enjoyed it immensely. And when you consider the fact that it's a made-for-TV film, it's even more amazing to me just how good it really is. I say amazing because I simply cannot imagine an American made-for-TV production equaling this British effort. Highlights for me include the acting (including nice performances by Ian Richardson, Brian Blessed, and Denholm Elliot), the location shoots (the authenticity of the movie is greatly enhanced by shooting on real mires and bogs), and a steady hand in the director's chair (the pacing of the film is just one of the movie's outstanding features). In fact, I've got very little to complain about. Sure, Donald Churchill all but takes his Watson into Nigel Bruce territory, but it's a minor distraction. Some of my favorite set-pieces included the hound attack in the fog, Holmes' gypsy impersonation, and the flashback sequence. Overall, this version of The Hound of the Baskervilles may not be my favorite and it may not be completely faithful to the source material, but it's a good show and well worth the effort to seek out for any fan of Sherlock Holmes.One final word on The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983) – I've got one small complaint about the DVD I viewed (R1 DVD from Image). Maybe it was just the copy I had or maybe it was the monitor I was watching it on, but several scenes were a bit too dark. A few times I had difficulty seeing what was going on. Like I said, maybe it was just me, but I thought I would put the warning out there just he same.

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.

With is terrific production values, marvelously atmospheric sets and perfect casting (with just one weak link: Martin Shaw as Sir Henry Baskerville), this could have been a great mystery movie, but it does not fulfill one of the basic requirements of the genre: that you shouldn't be able to figure out the villain's identity before the movie reveals it to you. Even if you haven't read the novel or seen any of the other film versions of it (and I haven't), most of the plot twists can be seen well in advance. (**1/2)