The Hound of the Baskervilles (1972)

Waste of time

That was an excellent one.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

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.

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!

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.