Let's be realistic.

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Brilliant and touching

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Of all the Hound renditions, this one is probably the most precise, and yet it still has to play with Conan-Doyle's wonderful plot. Most of the plot elements are in place, but they had to misuse characters such as Laura Lyons and create an abusive husband, an artist living in the area. Also, they couldn't resist the sappy ending, with Sir Henry and Beryl immediately joining hands. The other issue that I take with virtually every incarnation of this epic is he treatment of Watson. Remember, he is a wise enough soul to write the exploits of Holmes for publication. Once again, he's portrayed as a bit of a buffoon. Let's blame Nigel Bruce for that, one of the worst of the Watsons (though the one first thought of when we look back on our viewing). The two men who portrayed him in the Jeremy Brett episodes captured him so much better. The acting here is OK. Richardson does a pretty good job with the great sleuth. Henry is dull and uninteresting. Stapleton was surprisingly good. Someday, someone will trust the story--unfortunately, I may not live that long.

This great-looking British TV movie has an impressive cast list and probably the most authentic-looking moors seen in a HOUND adaptation, but otherwise is unexpectedly flat and dull in tone. My main question has to be: why bother remaking a story which has already been told - sometimes excellently - so many times before? The only reason would be to take the story in interesting, different directions, but this mainly sticks to the book and plods along to an unimpressive conclusion.While the costumes, sets, music, and scenery are fine, the rather surprisingly bland direction by Douglas Hickox (THEATRE OF BLOOD) serves to diminish the interest of many moments, only picking up occasionally for a spot of action. The casting is fine but nobody really excels in their role, or alternatively sticks in the memory. Ian Richardson physically looks the part of Holmes, yet while his acting methods are fine, he displays little of Rathbone's natural charisma. Donald Churchill is a worthy successor to Nigel Bruce's Watson, at least, but Martin Shaw looks uncomfortably out-of-place as the American Sir Henry, complete with a dodgy accent and '80s hairdo. It's not the actor you would imagine in the role at all. Elsewhere, there are solid turns from Denholm Elliott (as a nervy - what else? - doctor), Brian Blessed (in big, burly, bearded and barmy persona), Connie Booth (wife of John Cleese and star of FAWLTY TOWERS) and Glynis Barber, which help lend authenticity to the proceedings. Old faces Edward Judd and Ronald Lacey also contribute nice minor roles as a butler and Inspector Lestrade respectively.Although only a television movie, the budget seems to have been rather high for this film, so forget any dry-ice enshrouded set-bound moors of previous versions. Here, it's the real thing, and shots of the isolated expanses of moorland help to create an appropriate atmosphere. Sadly the silly-looking scenes of a dog with a glowing outline rapidly dispel any atmosphere that may have been built up, although some night-time shenanigans and murders help to make up for this. THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is fine enough in itself, but for fans who've already seen Universal's 1939 version or Hammer's 1959 adaptation, the question is... why bother? A well-made but slow-paced and unexciting tale.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is probably the most well-known Sherlock Holmes tale. There have been so many adaptations, with some very good (1988 Brett and 1959 Cushing) and some a little dull (2002 Roxburgh), but the story is a very gripping one so its always enjoyable to see. Yet the 1983 version is easily one of the better efforts.The premise is pretty much the same as the novel. Sir Henry Baskerville arrives in England to inherit the estate of his uncle Sir Charles, who died mysteriously. Dr. Mortimer comes to Holmes with the legend of a demonic hound that has plagued the Baskervilles for many generations, with Holmes deciding to join the case in belief that someone or something is threatening Sir Henry's life. There are some liberties taken and little changes (the addition of Geoffrey Lyons, more of Lestrade and a little more action in the climax). None of these things distract from the story and are actually welcomed in certain places.Ian Richardson makes Holmes more upbeat and humorous than usual, but he does a fantastic job. He looks the part and handles the dialogue perfectly, whilst nicely balancing wit and seriousness. It is a shame he only got to play Holmes twice. Sadly, Donald Churchill goes a down the Nigel Bruce way of playing Watson. He comes off as slow- minded and clumsy, the opposite of what Watson should be. It does hurt things a bit as Watson is the main protagonist here, but he does have some nice moments and a warmth that never makes him uninteresting.The support is very solid. Denholm Elliot is very good as a more soft spoken and on edge Mortimer, seeming intelligent and forgetful. Martin Shaw is a little bland as Sir Henry, the accent is also a little faulty, but he does a decent enough job. Nicholas Clay is brilliant as Stapleton, playing up his eccentric side to good effect and keeping the character mysterious. Glynis Barber is fine as Beryl. Brian Blessed and Ronald Lacey are excellent as usual, with Eleanor Bron and Edward Judd perfectly playing the Barrymore's.The production values are truly excellent. The picture looks great considering its made for TV. The locations used are perfect, the moors looks beautiful of a day and haunting of a night. Even the sets look very authentic and don't take anything away from the film. The soundtrack is also superb, balancing sweeping tones with quiet creepy moments. The atmosphere is another strong point, this being probably the creepiest version of the Hound. The origins of the legend, the chilling light upon the moor and event parts of the climax are perfect in crafting the scary tone. The hound itself is one of the best, it looks downright terrifying and the phosphorus glow adds to the spectral horror. The more action added to the climax is actually quite welcomed and adds more excitement to the ending. It might not be a perfect adaption, but this version of the Hound profits from some great actors, a wonderful look and strong atmosphere to be one of the best versions of the classic story.

I won't deny this is my favourite Sherlock Holmes yarn. I must have read the story a dozen times and I own 10 film versions of it. IMO this is one of the best. True, they didn't quite stick to the story at times but in contrast to some other productions they did with the crucial parts of it. Although you can make a point of it that a film is quite a different art form and it is thus no offence to alter the storyline of a novel when adapting it to a movie I am somewhat sensitive when it comes to Sherlock Holmes adaptations. Although Richardson is in this movie not the epitome of my idea of Holmes he did a good job. As did everyone else of the cast. Another thing that struck me was that this is by far the scariest version of the HOUND I've seen. All in all it even surpasses the Brett version even though Brett generally did a better job at playing Holmes.