This is clearly the most popular Sherlock Holmes adventure, since it is the one most actors choose in order to showcase their suitability for the role (notably Basil Rathbone at Universal and Peter Cushing for Hammer) and was even plundered for spoofing purposes in 1978! With this in mind, it is small wonder that Stewart Granger, too, has turned up in an adaptation; the end result, however, was very much disliked by Leonard Maltin – rating it 'Below Average' and accorded the unenviable epithet "for masochists only"! Still, all things considered, its main fault is that of being thoroughly superfluous – with no new take on the narrative (apart from presenting us with the first white-haired Holmes!) and, worse, ripping off Dr. Watson's buffoonish characterization straight from Nigel Bruce! If anything, the film-makers have managed to recruit a serviceable cast (including a fine Anthony Zerbe as a limping and henpecked{!} doctor, a wasted Jane Merrow and Sally Ann Howes, a grumpy John Williams, and a surprisingly restrained William Shatner in a dual role), while the titular beast looks vicious enough (unlike some of the better versions, admittedly!) – what is more, this is certainly proof that, in some cases, the plot really is the thing (as the saying goes)...
14 Reviews
Decent TV movie-of-the-week
witsend6422 January 2010
Not a classic to be sure, but a decent TV movie-of-the-week adaptation of the oft-filmed Conan Doyle novel. Although it departs somewhat from the book, all the essential elements of the story are there. The cast does its best, and Granger makes an interesting Holmes. It would have been nice to have seen him as the Great Detective in other movies; he really was a class act. As noted by others, Bernard Fox is a more than adequate Dr. Watson. The costumes and sets are also good for a made-for-TV production of this era. But that music! You'd think that with the entire Universal Studios library of music at their disposal, the producers could have chosen more appropriate themes and cues!
At about 72 minutes, this brief version of a classic mystery makes an enjoyable time-filler; suitable for family viewing.
At about 72 minutes, this brief version of a classic mystery makes an enjoyable time-filler; suitable for family viewing.
Well, not a total dog...
hte-trasme14 May 2010
This adaptation of Conan Doyle's most famous Sherlock Holmes story was made as a TV movie for ABC -- evidently with considerably limited resources. I don't begrudge a film for being made under budget of resource constraints but this "Hound of the Baskervilles" doesn't handle those constraints well. On the whole it has a good number of flaws, none of which is vastly troublesome individually, but which together make it an uninspiring Sherlock Holmes film.
It's a sad victim of needing resources for a story set in a different time and with a wider scope than perfectly standard TV programs circa 1972, and not getting that. As a result there are some distractingly sloppy production decisions, with poorly disguised studio sets doubling for the moor, some scenes obviously dubbed in later, and even paintings used as exteriors and some very obvious CSO/bluescreen representing Watson's reflection in tea set early on. The stock music score is distracting, loud, and almost amusingly inappropriate at times.
Stewart Granger is rather oddly cast as Sherlock Holmes as he does not look the part at all, but that is not in itself a flaw. His acting is adequate for these purposes but it's really rather a one-dimensional performance, mainly slick superiority and not much more. Bernard Fox is a pretty good Watson, traditionally befuddled yet still believable when he does something intelligent.
William Shatner is a very recognizable face "guest starring" (per the credits) in a small role as Stapleton. Jokes aside, I actually think he's a very good actor, and it's nice to see him here. Other performances are generally lackluster, except for Anthony Zerbe as Dr. Mortimer. He started out impressing me as too obviously sinister, but then growing on me in a quiet and eccentrically good performance.
The script of the adaptation is serviceable if very surface-oriented and lacking in much sparkle. This was entertaining enough viewing for its running time, but overall one is left with an impression of a careless production on which not many people really tried very hard; I'm not surprised Watson's obvious hint at sequels to this production in the closing moments was not taken up.
It's a sad victim of needing resources for a story set in a different time and with a wider scope than perfectly standard TV programs circa 1972, and not getting that. As a result there are some distractingly sloppy production decisions, with poorly disguised studio sets doubling for the moor, some scenes obviously dubbed in later, and even paintings used as exteriors and some very obvious CSO/bluescreen representing Watson's reflection in tea set early on. The stock music score is distracting, loud, and almost amusingly inappropriate at times.
Stewart Granger is rather oddly cast as Sherlock Holmes as he does not look the part at all, but that is not in itself a flaw. His acting is adequate for these purposes but it's really rather a one-dimensional performance, mainly slick superiority and not much more. Bernard Fox is a pretty good Watson, traditionally befuddled yet still believable when he does something intelligent.
William Shatner is a very recognizable face "guest starring" (per the credits) in a small role as Stapleton. Jokes aside, I actually think he's a very good actor, and it's nice to see him here. Other performances are generally lackluster, except for Anthony Zerbe as Dr. Mortimer. He started out impressing me as too obviously sinister, but then growing on me in a quiet and eccentrically good performance.
The script of the adaptation is serviceable if very surface-oriented and lacking in much sparkle. This was entertaining enough viewing for its running time, but overall one is left with an impression of a careless production on which not many people really tried very hard; I'm not surprised Watson's obvious hint at sequels to this production in the closing moments was not taken up.
a proposed mystery series...
jwpeel-112 June 2013
I remember even the TV promo for this turkey. Not only did it feature a white haired Sherlock Holmes, but a boring over the top Dr. Watson.The mystery as handled badly and the most amazing part of it all was that was a pilot to a rotating series of detective characters including Ross Martin as Charlie Chan. I m glad that never happened and I am a hardcore Sherlock Holmes fan. For the record, Peter Crushing and Nigel Stock are the very best of Holmes and Watson ever... even better than Basil and Nigel, or Jeremy Brett and either of his Watsons. Just saying.
Having said all of that, I would Ike to own a DVD of the film just because I am a completist..Maybe even a bit of a glutton for punishment.
Having said all of that, I would Ike to own a DVD of the film just because I am a completist..Maybe even a bit of a glutton for punishment.
the funniest sherlock holmes movie ever!
taff-421 December 1998
This film is cheap, nasty and very funny. William Shatner at his plank-like best. Why Stuart Grainger ever got involved with this dog, is a mystery of the first order. The sets steal the show, the major laugh coming from the use of old cowboy film sets to represent a Dartmoor village! Too many liberties taken with the original story to mention, but I was not the only one who lost the plot, so did the director.A major insult to Arthur Conan Doyle, but a bloody good chortle for anyone who doesn't take their Holmsian epics too seriously.
Awkward and far too "American TV"
profh-130 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen 17 of the (at least) 23 different film adaptations of the "HOUND", and, crazy enough, this was only the 2nd one I ever saw-- on the same day I first saw the 1959 Hammer version! Little did I know how MANY better ones were waiting for me in the decades to come. It had been 51 YEARS since I saw this when it was first-run, and I was very much looking forward to seeing it again, and to compare it against the others. Having now done so... OY! There was just something about early-70s US TV that seemed utterly determined to remove all style, excitement and fun that had been present in most 60s TV, and I'm afraid this is a perfect example of that. It looks and feels exactly like what it is... by which I mean, every frame of this film just screams "70s US TV", and not in a good way.
The thing that caught my attention the most was the numerous elements from the novel that were NOT featured in most other films. This includes Cartright being sent on a mission to scour various hotels in search of the person who sent the warning notes, or the entire MAJOR subplot involving Laura Lyons, her bad marriage, estrangement from her father, her friendship with Stapleton & her desire to obtain a divorce. There's also the way Holmes explains various details of the case to Watson on their return to Baker Street at the end. The first and last of these I have only ever seen elsewhere in the 1981 Russian TV version! There's also Holmes recruiting Lestrade to arrest the culprit at the end, which I've only seen in the '81 Russian version and the '82 Tom Baker version.
There's also such odd bits as the villain intending to shoot Sir Henry in front of a clothing shop in London, which turned up in the 1983 Ian Richardson version, or Holmes accompanying Watson to Dartmoor, and only later pretending to leave so he can investigate without anyone knowing he's around-- which was one of the major changes of the 1967 Italian TV version! Mortimer saying his dog had died came from the 1939 Rathbone version. It goes on like this.
What really stands out is how the entire film feels awkwardly structured, photographed and edited, even more awkwardly dialogued (not one line seems to have come unchanged from the novel), and acted in a fashion that suggests the director told everybody to "hold back" and "tone it down". So many background characters are total ciphers, and those who should not be, like Beryl (the usually-gorgeous Jane Merrow), Lestrade (Alan Caillou not displaying one ounce of his usual character onscreen), Mortimer (Anthony Zerbe seemed to be on downers for his entire performance) and, for God's sake, Stapleton (William Shatner, who hardly has ANY screen-time at all, and barely even registers when he is on-camera!).
The worst thing I can say is... it doesn't FEEL like a Holmes film!
At least Stewart Granger got to display some character (though his Holmes does not seem to have any genuine warmth toward his best friend), and Bernard Fox is like a slightly-smarter and less-blustery Nigel Bruce. Arthur Mallet as the cabbie also has a nice moment, though the scene is ruined when Holmes names the fake detective rather than allowing the cabbie to do so himself. Writer Robert E. Thompson and director Barry Crane are the clear culprits here. Both apparently did nothing but TV in their entire careers, and the only long stretch I see by Crane is 15 episodes of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-- but, all in the years after Landau & Bain left the show. Hmm.
The best thing I can say about this is, it's NOWHERE near as awful as the Ross Martin CHARLIE CHAN pilot, but, if memory serves, nowhere near as good as the Robert Conrad NICK CARTER pilot. On the other hand, it's at least a HUNDRED times better than the unwatchable, UNFUNNY Peter Cook-Dudley Moore atrocity.
As of this writing, this TV film is available on DVD-R from a whole variety of mail-order outfits who specialize in rare, out-of-print items. DVD Lady, The Rare Movie Collector, The Film Collectors Society Of America, True TV Movies, Rare Flix, and Loving The Classics. I got the latter, mainly because it came with a plastic box rather than just a paper sleeve. Their copy was recorded off what I believe was a UK "Mystery" series that seems to have been hosted by Christopher Lee (though I could only see him for about half a second right at the end). In addition, Pidax, an outfit in Germany, has put out a Region 2 DVD which appears to be the only "official" release I've seen anywhere online. However, the only 2 sellers I've seen it available from, DO NOT ship to the US! Annoying, to say the least.
The thing that caught my attention the most was the numerous elements from the novel that were NOT featured in most other films. This includes Cartright being sent on a mission to scour various hotels in search of the person who sent the warning notes, or the entire MAJOR subplot involving Laura Lyons, her bad marriage, estrangement from her father, her friendship with Stapleton & her desire to obtain a divorce. There's also the way Holmes explains various details of the case to Watson on their return to Baker Street at the end. The first and last of these I have only ever seen elsewhere in the 1981 Russian TV version! There's also Holmes recruiting Lestrade to arrest the culprit at the end, which I've only seen in the '81 Russian version and the '82 Tom Baker version.
There's also such odd bits as the villain intending to shoot Sir Henry in front of a clothing shop in London, which turned up in the 1983 Ian Richardson version, or Holmes accompanying Watson to Dartmoor, and only later pretending to leave so he can investigate without anyone knowing he's around-- which was one of the major changes of the 1967 Italian TV version! Mortimer saying his dog had died came from the 1939 Rathbone version. It goes on like this.
What really stands out is how the entire film feels awkwardly structured, photographed and edited, even more awkwardly dialogued (not one line seems to have come unchanged from the novel), and acted in a fashion that suggests the director told everybody to "hold back" and "tone it down". So many background characters are total ciphers, and those who should not be, like Beryl (the usually-gorgeous Jane Merrow), Lestrade (Alan Caillou not displaying one ounce of his usual character onscreen), Mortimer (Anthony Zerbe seemed to be on downers for his entire performance) and, for God's sake, Stapleton (William Shatner, who hardly has ANY screen-time at all, and barely even registers when he is on-camera!).
The worst thing I can say is... it doesn't FEEL like a Holmes film!
At least Stewart Granger got to display some character (though his Holmes does not seem to have any genuine warmth toward his best friend), and Bernard Fox is like a slightly-smarter and less-blustery Nigel Bruce. Arthur Mallet as the cabbie also has a nice moment, though the scene is ruined when Holmes names the fake detective rather than allowing the cabbie to do so himself. Writer Robert E. Thompson and director Barry Crane are the clear culprits here. Both apparently did nothing but TV in their entire careers, and the only long stretch I see by Crane is 15 episodes of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-- but, all in the years after Landau & Bain left the show. Hmm.
The best thing I can say about this is, it's NOWHERE near as awful as the Ross Martin CHARLIE CHAN pilot, but, if memory serves, nowhere near as good as the Robert Conrad NICK CARTER pilot. On the other hand, it's at least a HUNDRED times better than the unwatchable, UNFUNNY Peter Cook-Dudley Moore atrocity.
As of this writing, this TV film is available on DVD-R from a whole variety of mail-order outfits who specialize in rare, out-of-print items. DVD Lady, The Rare Movie Collector, The Film Collectors Society Of America, True TV Movies, Rare Flix, and Loving The Classics. I got the latter, mainly because it came with a plastic box rather than just a paper sleeve. Their copy was recorded off what I believe was a UK "Mystery" series that seems to have been hosted by Christopher Lee (though I could only see him for about half a second right at the end). In addition, Pidax, an outfit in Germany, has put out a Region 2 DVD which appears to be the only "official" release I've seen anywhere online. However, the only 2 sellers I've seen it available from, DO NOT ship to the US! Annoying, to say the least.
a TV B movie
roddy9817 February 2007
I got to see this today for the first time since 1972, and I was amazed how bad it was. An ABC Movie of the Week, the music was lifted from the 1962 Cape Fear and mostly from The Night Walker (1964). The film's sets were cheap Night Galley-looking also with stock footage. Stewart Granger, a good actor was probably cast just because he was English, Shatner is hardly in it at all. I thought the best performances were Bernard Fox and Anthony Zerbe. Many things from the first 2 movies were changed around, I suppose because of time constraints, but the best Hound film and the best Holmes and Watson is the 1959 version with Peter Cushing and Andre Morrell. Watch this only out of nostalgia.
one of my favorites
solar124 January 2006
I have a great deal of affection for this movie. It's flawed, but it's a hoot! Granger certainly makes a unique and entertaining Holmes. The decision to cast Bernard Fox as Watson was a fabulous move. The cast also includes the always entertaining Anthony Zerbe and William Shatner too! I agree with another reviewer who noted that Holmes living on a hill overlooking London is definitely a nice touch. It truly conjures up the idea of Holmes as a protector of the city. This version of the classic tale deserves it's reputation as a cheap and cheesy TV movie, but it also deserves to be remembered as being hell of a lot of fun! I've had a ball enjoying this one on many occasions. Fun stuff!
Hounds of the Baskerville, 1972
ilania_a28 May 2006
I beg to differ. This production was by far the best of the films made of this story. I did not laugh at all. In fact I would like to own a VHS or a DVD of this film, if possible!
I loved all the movies featuring Stewart Granger, he was a captivating star! I also liked the actor Ian Ireland, who played Sir Henry. The photography was very good and the film created an ambiance/mood befitting this mystery.
Despite the fact that it has been many years since I have seen it and I am not really able to point out specific details, I can safely say that this was an entertaining movie.
I loved all the movies featuring Stewart Granger, he was a captivating star! I also liked the actor Ian Ireland, who played Sir Henry. The photography was very good and the film created an ambiance/mood befitting this mystery.
Despite the fact that it has been many years since I have seen it and I am not really able to point out specific details, I can safely say that this was an entertaining movie.
But there is One Saving Grace...
Steevh9 April 1999
...And that's an aspect of the set design- one tiny thing, mind you- the background painting of St Paul's Cathedral behind Baker Street, that gives the impression that Holmes lives on a hill overlooking London. It's irrelevant to most people, but for me that's a nugget of accidental genius that sums up how I feel about Holmes... the watchful guardian etc etc.
Apart from that, yes it's crap.
Apart from that, yes it's crap.
I loved this version best of all!
sstacy-53 February 2008
Actually I watched it when I was very young with my Mom and it scared me! I never forgot it and I was hoping someone here would know where I could get a DVD copy of it for my Mom's birthday in March! Anybody? I would really appreciate it! I have looked and looked to no avail. Please let me know as soon as possible~ Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I know my Mom will love it! Thanks! I am sure there is someone out there who has this DVD! Just sitting on a shelf somewhere! I just wanted to ask this one question but it says I cant post it at all till I make ten whole lines of text so please pardon the rambling lol! Thank you~
Not the real thing
ChrisHawk7819 June 2001
And that is understated! The film does take a lot of liberty with the original story. But not only that. Stewart Granger who might not be a bad actor after all is certainly not a Shelock Holmes. And who in those days would have appointed a person as looking like Mortimer as Medical officer of any district in those days. I mean - why create a mysterious character where there is no need of one. One thing however is remarkable in this case. According to the book Mortimer is "a fellow under thirty". Anthony Zerbe was 36 when this film was made. Still older than the original Mortimer yet younger than Lionel Atwill in the film from '39 who was then 54 or Francis de Wolff who was 46 in 59 when Terence Fisher chose to make his film or Denholm Elliot in the '83 version who was then already 61. The Set has been commented on in several critics and there is nothing much to add to this. The costumes are all right, I guess (even if it seems that the whole male population of London was wearing Inverness Capes) but why did Holmes have to wear that ridiculous Bow-Tie in the beginning. One thing however should be mentioned: Bernard Fox. I have not seen any other performances of his but I did like him as Watson. He is not quite the bumbler as in many other Holmes films but has in fact some rather bright moments in this one. Anyway he is not unlike the Paget Watson.
Bad version of a favourite old chestnut
barnabyrudge4 December 2002
This is the umpteenth version of a popular Conan Doyle mystery novel, featuring the legendary Sherlock Holmes and his assistant Watson. Unfortunately, this is the poorest version of the story of the lot, with terribly miscast actors struggling to contend with an amateurish script. Shatner and Zerbe in particular look misplaced amid the period trappings, but even Granger (as Holmes) doesn't seem to fit, in spite of his classical English accent.Even the music for the movie is plundered from Cape Fear. If you want to see a good Sherlock Holmes movie, stick with the Basil Rathbone series.... this is the pits!
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Coxer9918 June 1999
Awful retelling of the Doyle story with a poor script, amatuerish settings and gross miscasting of Granger as an uninspiring Sherlock Holmes. Fox at least has the befuddled look down for Watson. Shatner is the worst one off here.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
