Alex Pan 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.

Jordan Hageman Easily my favorite and easily the best Sherlock Holmes interpretation. I have seen many Sherlock Holmes shows, films, etc. but this is staggeringly accurate and spot on. I love this film and it is so faithful to the source material while introducing some interesting things. The acting of course is sensational with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke as Holmes and Watson.I highly recommend this film and this canon of Sherlock Holmes to any fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's material. Other great films/series in the same universe and with Brett and Hardwicke would be The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, Masterpiece Mystery, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes.

Hitchcoc 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.

Paul Andrews The Hound of the Baskervilles starts late one night at 'Baskerville Hall' as Sir Charles Baskerville (Raymond Adamson) waits outside in his gardens, suddenly he hears a chilling howl coming from the moors... Dr. Mortimer (Neil Duncan) contacts contacts Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett) & his assistant Dr. John Watson (Edward Hardwicke) & tells them of Sir Charles untimely death which he feels is suspicious, he talks about a 200 year old legend about a huge demonic hound that has terrorised the Baskerville family & that paw prints were found near Sir Charles body. Dr. Mortimer also says that the last remaining Baskerville Sir Henry (Kristoffer Tabori) is travelling from America to claim his inheritance. Upon arrival Sir Henry receives a threatening letter telling him to stay away from Baskerville Hall which he ignores & together with Dr. Watson & Dr. Mortimer travels to Devon & settle into Baskerville Hall. The list of suspects is long with the servants Mr. (Ronald Pickup) & Mrs. Barrymore (Rosemary McHale) acting strangely & the escaped murderer Selden (William Ilkley) running around the moors...Made for British TV by Granada & directed by Brian Mills this adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles is the second version of this classic tale I have seen this year & both were almost exactly the same. The script by T.R. Bowen based on the novel by Arthur Conan Doyle retains all the basic story elements, it moves along at a nice pace & is involving although if you know anything about the well told tale then nothing here will come as a surprise which isn't a problem with this version in itself it's just that there are so many versions around which I would imagine don't differ that much. Holmes takes a back seat for a large chunk of the film & I thought the ending was somewhat underwhelming & felt a little rushed which was probably down to it's budget & tight TV shooting schedule. The film was obviously shot on location & you couldn't ask for more of the British countryside & the manor house used. The budget probably wasn't as high as the other one I saw as it looks a little basic at times, there is no extravagant production design & everything is kept quite simple yet still maintains it's effectiveness. The Hound itself has a silly green glowing special effect to it & isn't really in the film that much. The acting is strong throughout but I'm not sure about Brett as Holmes, don't really know why but I didn't like him that much. Overall it's a good solid engaging adaptation of what now must surely be a story told far too often as once you've seen one of them there isn't much interest in seeing any other. If you have never seen a Hound of the Baskervilles before than I can easily recommend this one but if you have I can't see the point in sitting through this. Good for Holmes virgins & completest's but old hat if your familiar with the story.