The Hound of the Baskervilles

1980 "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would turn in his Harris Tweeds if he saw what Pete and Dud have done to his classic tale of old rubbish!"
4.5| 1h25m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 01 November 1980 Released
Producted By:
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The death of Sir Charles Baskerville is blamed on a curse that has followed the Baskerville family for two hundred years. Sherlock Holmes is out to uncover the truth about a hound who roams the moors, waiting to attack the heir to the Baskerville estate.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with MGM

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

Reviews

TheLittleSongbird With such a classic story, turned on its head in a comedic way (different and could have been funny), and with an array of fine talent with great experience in comedy, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' could have worked as a guilty pleasure. That was not to be. Thought 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' an abomination when first seeing it. Was hoping it would be better than remembered on re-watch, that's happened with some re-watches though a majority are about the same. As much as it pains me to say it, it's still an abomination. Not just as an adaptation of the story, done in a comedic way and with only the title, the basic structure and characters names intact, on that front by far the worst version (yes worse than Matt Frewer's and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would not be proud if he saw this). Also on its own terms and a comedy and as a film.One of the worst and most shameful wastes of talent there's been and the tagline "Sherlock Holmes has never been like this" doesn't lie, and that is not in a good way. Can't think of many good things here, Denholm Elliot doesn't come over as badly as the others and does his best, so that's one thing in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' favour.Rest of the cast are used poorly and the broadness of the style of the acting goes well overboard and often in a vulgar way. Peter Cook overdoes it and brings no subtlety or nuance whatsoever to balance out the trying-too-hard nature of his acting, while Dudley Moore is an embarrassment. There are a lot of familiar faces but as said they are generally wasted (Terry-Thomas deserved a much better final film than this, easily one of the worst final films for any actor, and Spike Milligan is even more wronged), stuck in crass roles (Joan Greenwood in one of the film's most distasteful opening scenes) or made to go far too over-the-top to painful degrees (Kenneth Williams).Production values are amateurishly shabby to the extent one has to check that the film was from 1978, it sure doesn't look like it and actually looks worse than most 1950s films. The music score is really out of place in style and placement, like it was written for something else entirely. The direction is barely competent and shows a director clearly ill at ease with the material and not knowing how to direct it. Worst of all is that 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' has no atmosphere whatsoever for such a suspenseful story and is never once funny. The one legged man comes off least badly but still doesn't work, due to the overlong repetition and that it feels like a re-hash of earlier Cook/Moore material. The humour is an all over the map mix of tastelessness, repetition, pointlessness and dragged out. In conclusion, a disastrous dogs dinner. 1/10 Bethany Cox
mike robson A wonderful cast are here involved in what must be the lowest point in all their careers.For some reason Dudley Moore plays Dr.Watson as a high voiced Welshman,and Peter Cook gives Holmes a "stage Jewish" accent!Made up of series of draggy sketches,everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown into the pot-including "The Exorcist" and Pete and Dud's "one leg short" sketch;the result is an incoherent mess.Most potentially amusing moments are killed dead by the sloppy approach of Paul Morrissey's direction.No attempt is made to capture the mystery of the original story, and the players shout,mug and flail around among pathetic threadbare sets.According to Harry Thompson's biography of Cook,Pete and Dud were deeply unhappy about Morrissey's approach to the material,and saw they'd got themselves into a disaster.No wonder the off screen audience throw rotten vegetables at Dudley at the end.A truly stupid film. .....that rumbling noise whenever this film is shown is old Sir Arthur spinning in his grave!
Chris Bright Harry Thompson's very readable biography of Cook gives some of the background to the making of this dismal effort. Cook and Moore didn't have the creative control they should have done, and for whatever reason didn't feel able to pull the plug when it was clear that things were going horribly wrong.The main problem is that Paul Morrissey has no clue about how Pete & Dud's humour works. This leads him to try and shoehorn them into his idea of "Carry on Sherlock" (a genre which he also fatally misunderstands).Worse, much of Pete & Dud's groundbreaking work from the 60's is recycled in debased form - notably the one-legged man auditioning for the part of Tarzan.I didn't even make it all the way through this when it was on TV a while back. See "Bedazzled" which has the benefit of a proper director and is a worthy showcase for perhaps the best English comedian of all. This is only notable as evidence of/a contribution to Cook's sad decline.
Dock-Ock The Hound of the Baskervilles is never realises its comedy potential as a vehicle for Dudley Moore and Peter Cook. However, it is an hillarious little piece in the Carry On mode, and that is its blessing and its curse. When its bad its awful, but it still has the ability to milk one or two belly laughs. Fans of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle will probably love it because it both sends up Doyles Holmes and Watson and is an affectionate tribute to their worlds. Were the movie falls flat is that the too many ideas are rather lacklusterly handled by Andy Warhol veteren Paul Morrissey. You rather wish the film had been directed by a heavy weight like Richard Lester or Blake Edwards or Cook and Moore themselves. At times the movie doesn't know whether it wants to be Monty Python smart or Carry On Corny, and so alot of the ideas that worked brilliantly on Cook and Moores Behind/Beyond the Fringe Days and Not Only But Also dont work here. What is fairly noticeable about this film is the growing talent and enthusiasm of Dudley Moore as a screen prescence. He has at this point broke free the comedy chains enforced by Peter Cooks talent and his confidence dances off the screen. His silent movie/Chaplin/Laurel and Hardy/Keaton tribute usical score is wondeful too. He is genuinely hillarious with his over the top welsh accent as Watson and cripplingly funny playing Holmes's mother. In all honesty it is Dudley who makes the film work. Dudley holds his own against British comedy greats such as Kenneth Williams(brilliant in the film), Terry-Thomas and Spike Milligan. Peter Cook is quite good as Sherlock Holmes, certainly looks the part and given the chance would have made a very good Holmes in a better movie. But it's Dudleys film, he is the one who makes it work, and things where abi=out to get very interesting for him over the next decade.