Better Late Then Never

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This adaptation of Conan Doyle's most famous Sherlock Holmes story was made as a TV movie for ABC -- evidently with considerably limited resources. I don't begrudge a film for being made under budget of resource constraints but this "Hound of the Baskervilles" doesn't handle those constraints well. On the whole it has a good number of flaws, none of which is vastly troublesome individually, but which together make it an uninspiring Sherlock Holmes film. It's a sad victim of needing resources for a story set in a different time and with a wider scope than perfectly standard TV programs circa 1972, and not getting that. As a result there are some distractingly sloppy production decisions, with poorly disguised studio sets doubling for the moor, some scenes obviously dubbed in later, and even paintings used as exteriors and some very obvious CSO/bluescreen representing Watson's reflection in tea set early on. The stock music score is distracting, loud, and almost amusingly inappropriate at times. Stewart Granger is rather oddly cast as Sherlock Holmes as he does not look the part at all, but that is not in itself a flaw. His acting is adequate for these purposes but it's really rather a one-dimensional performance, mainly slick superiority and not much more. Bernard Fox is a pretty good Watson, traditionally befuddled yet still believable when he does something intelligent. William Shatner is a very recognizable face "guest starring" (per the credits) in a small role as Stapleton. Jokes aside, I actually think he's a very good actor, and it's nice to see him here. Other performances are generally lackluster, except for Anthony Zerbe as Dr. Mortimer. He started out impressing me as too obviously sinister, but then growing on me in a quiet and eccentrically good performance. The script of the adaptation is serviceable if very surface-oriented and lacking in much sparkle. This was entertaining enough viewing for its running time, but overall one is left with an impression of a careless production on which not many people really tried very hard; I'm not surprised Watson's obvious hint at sequels to this production in the closing moments was not taken up.

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.

I have a great deal of affection for this movie. It's flawed, but it's a hoot! Granger certainly makes a unique and entertaining Holmes. The decision to cast Bernard Fox as Watson was a fabulous move. The cast also includes the always entertaining Anthony Zerbe and William Shatner too! I agree with another reviewer who noted that Holmes living on a hill overlooking London is definitely a nice touch. It truly conjures up the idea of Holmes as a protector of the city. This version of the classic tale deserves it's reputation as a cheap and cheesy TV movie, but it also deserves to be remembered as being hell of a lot of fun! I've had a ball enjoying this one on many occasions. Fun stuff!

Awful retelling of the Doyle story with a poor script, amatuerish settings and gross miscasting of Granger as an uninspiring Sherlock Holmes. Fox at least has the befuddled look down for Watson. Shatner is the worst one off here.