So much average

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Ranking this one a point above Rathbone and Brett's versions. Taken as a whole, it's just a little better. Ian Richardson was a splendid Holmes. It's too bad he didn't get to do more of these than just THOTB and TSOF. Donald Churchill is fine as Watson, though David Healy in Sign of Four opposite Richardson is better. Production values are very good, especially for TV, and the supporting cast has gold in it. Martin Shaw is wonderful as Sir Henry, a full-fledged cowboy in this interpretation, and Nicholas Clay is a particularly nasty Stapleton (and Sir Hugo). The scene of Sir Hugo in the swamp with his captive -- well, let's just say you won't be sorry to see him get eaten by a devil dog. Which brings up the hound, one of the main reasons I like this version. The title character looks better here than in just about any previous version. For once, they stick with the novel and make it a spectral dog than glows wildly with fire in the night, and they make it look good. Though he didn't get to do many Holmes films, Richardson did make the series Murder Rooms, based on Dr. Joseph Bell, Doyle's professor who inspired the Holmes character. Check those out after you watch this.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is certainly one of the more popular Sherlock Holmes stories and with good reason, it is an excellent story. Out of all the adaptations while not the best(the Rathbone, Cushing and Brett versions were marginally better), lacking the freshness of the aforementioned versions, this version is very solid and entertaining. I remarked in my review for the Cushing film it was decent but actually it is better than decent it is very good more like. There is a suitably creepy atmosphere, and it respects the book in terms of story and scripting. Plus the production values are excellent and the music haunting. The acting is great, Ian Richardson is the best of the lot, and I found his Holmes interesting. Whereas Brett and Rathbone were grittier and more sophisticated, Richardson goes for a more sly and sardonic approach and it worked. Donald Churchill is an admirable Dr Watson, and Martin Shaw is remarkable as Sir Henry. I also liked Brian Blessed here too and Ronald Lacey(the Sholto brothers in the Brett version of Sign of Four) was entertaining as Lestrade. Overall, solid and entertaining, the best? Perhaps not. But I think I underestimated it slightly initially, for it is very good and better I think than Richardson's version of Sign of Four(though that was good). 8/10 Bethany Cox

This is without doubt the finest version of what is possibly Sherlock Holmes' most famous case concerning the suspicious death of Charles Baskerville and a centuries-old curse on the family involving a giant hound. When Baskerville's heir arrives in London, it's soon obvious he is in danger from something more than a mere legend and in no time the game's afoot. Ian Richardson is perfectly cast as Holmes and it's a real shame he only played the character in a couple of films. The rest of the star-studded cast is equally good, the sets look authentic and the moorlands are perfect whether they're presented in sunlit beauty or fog-shrouded darkness. With its genuine suspense, interesting storyline and beautiful soundtrack there isn't a dull moment in this film. A masterpiece.

Besides the Hammer version of 1959 (or even MURDER BY DECREE about Jack the Ripper) this is one of the more scarier Holmes movies ever made. Fog-shrouded moors and spectral killer dogs mix with the usual detective suspense to make this way better than most movies that are made for television.