The Hound of the Baskervilles (1980)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

There are very few movies I've seen that I found so monumentally awful that I felt compelled to watch them again because I was convinced they could not have really been as bad as I thought. I have not yet re-watched Paul Morrissey's Hound of the Baskervilles, but I intend to. Until then, we'll have to go with my initial, head-spinning thoughts on the movie.To say this adaptation of the classic Arthur Conan Doyle story (screenplay by director Morrissey and co-stars Dudley Moore and Peter Cook) is terrible is an understatement. It is beyond terrible. Other than a few chuckles and maybe one actual laugh the movie is brutally unfunny. The look of the film is drab and unattractive, the pacing is slow and the filmmaking is sloppy and scattershot to the point of seeming downright amateurish.Moore and Cook, two comic geniuses, enthusiastically dive into their characters but cannot wring any joy or even mild amusement out of the material. The rest of the cast, made up mostly of familiar faces that populated classic British cinema in the 60s and 70s, appear utterly confused, as if they walked on the set and Morrissey just turned on the camera and said "action." It appears Morrissey is trying to recapture the gleeful irreverence of his Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula but forgot how he managed to accomplish it. The outrageous gore, bizarre characters and non-sequitur dialog juxtaposed against such lush and pastoral settings made for a pair of genuinely idiosyncratic films (which were shot back-to-back).That same magic never materializes in Hound of the Baskervilles. It is an utterly lifeless movie. The actors' performances are akin to witnessing the death throes of a drowning animal desperately trying to stay afloat. That mixed with the mind-numbingly awful screenplay and leaden direction results in an intensely unpleasant and uncomfortable experience.Considering Morrissey's roots with Andy Warhol's Factory, one wonders if that were not his intention all along.

Normally I don't rate movies that I've only watched 15 minutes of, but I'm going to make an exception for this one, because it begins so remarkably badly that it is almost unimaginable that it could redeem itself. Written by and starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, who have done many wonderful things, this is such a total misfire that one can only stare in disbelief. The beginning feels very much like a bad burlesque sketch. The "humor" is very broad, with Dudley putting on a moronic accent and Cook playing Holmes with seemingly no clear idea of what his character is or how he wants to approach him. I'm just utterly perplexed that this movie was made, and feel everyone involved should hang their heads in shame.

I've seen a number of different film adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles, so I thought I might enjoy a spoof of this familiar story. Also, I've seen some of the other work Peter Cook and Dudley Moore did together and thought they might have a chance at success with such a project. My reaction, well if you've been on IMDb for any length of time, you've probably seen the well thought out response "It Sux" when someone is asked about their opinion on a given film. Well, "It Sux" pretty well sums up my feelings to the abomination that is The Hound of the Baskervilles. It is a complete waste of time and effort. I can't imagine how two talented individuals like Cook and Moore could have concocted such a disaster of a film. It's nothing short of a chore to sit through the thing. It's the complete opposite of funny. In addition to Cook and Moore, there's a good cast assembled including Joan Greenwood, Denholm Elliot, Hugh Griffith, and the usually entertaining Terry-Thomas. I actually started to feel embarrassed for these talented actors. What were they thinking? And where in the world did the scenes taken from The Exorcist come from? I don't remember any pea soup spitting in Doyle's original work.I actually bought The Hound of the Baskervilles on DVD. I'm glad it only set me back $3, because the 2/10 I've rated the movie may actually be overstating things a bit.

Following the rudimentary outline of Conan Doyle's famous Sherlock Holmes tale, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore concoct a feast of comical whimsy. Or so they would have sold this weak film to its producers. As it is, it is a threadbare piece of work all too briefly lightened with flashes of genius(I laughed out loud when Dud encounters his double in the post office). We have bits of Pete'n'Dud's earlier stage material (ie 'i've nothing against your right leg, and neither have you') which were much funnier (because they were much fresher) in their original versions. Newer material seemed thin and drawn out. The accents that Cook and Moore avail themselves of (Jewish and Welsh) are funny to begin with, but soon pall. Likewise, the piddling dog is hilarious but dragged on for so long that the viewer starts to become annoyed and forget that he ever found it amusing. The music is a major drag. Dudley is an accomplished pianist, but his soundtrack in the manner of an old silent film accompanist falls as flat as the rest of the film.