Quite a solid rendition of the quintessential Sherlock Holmes case as TV movies go, though clearly still not a patch on either the 1939 Fox or 1959 Hammer big-screen versions. I liked Ian Richardson better here than in the same year's THE SIGN OF FOUR – perhaps because his tendency to go over-the-top gets channeled this time around through Holmes' own penchant for disguise! Even the rapport with Dr. Watson (a different actor from his subsequent effort) seems to be more congenial – if still basically a comic foil a' la Nigel Bruce. Again, the rest of the cast list is peppered with established performers: Martin Shaw (amusingly decked-out in Texan attire!), Nicholas Clay (in the proverbial dual role at the core of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic tale), Denholm Elliott (playing a different role to the one he had had in the 1978 spoof), Ronald Lacey (as Inspector Lestrade), Brian Blessed (though his gruffness borders on caricature!), Connie Booth (Mrs. John Cleese!), Edward Judd (nearly unrecognizable) and Eleanor Bron. The titular creature, too, with its constantly radiant eyes and at, one point, his entire frame appears to glow, was presumably envisaged as the typical movie monster (let us not forget there were at least two 'hell hound' movies some years previously – one of which I should be checking out soon, incidentally – while the Stephen King adaptation CUJO was released the same year). That said, director Hickox was well-versed in this sort of thing, and he handles proceedings with customary professionalism (albeit, understandably, on a small scale). This is now the seventh version of the tale that I have watched – 1939, 1959, 1968, 1972, 1978 and 2002 – and, for what it is worth, there are still a few out there which I would not mind checking out in the long run...

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.

Probably my favorite version of the Holmes novel. Ian Richardson makes a great Sherlock Holmes, who (like Rathbone) strongly resembles the earlier drawings of Holmes. It's true that Richardson's Holmes is much nicer than the rude and moody Holmes of the novels, but I don't really mind it. Donald Churchill makes a good Watson, seems like a buffoon at times, but not nearly as much as Nigel Bruce. A treat to see in movie are RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK actors Denholm Elliot as Dr. Mortimer and Ronald Lacey as Inspector Lestrade, who was not in the novel, but a nice addition. The hound in the movie, is the best I've seen. Large black, and glowing, definitely closer to the description in the book than probably any other movie has gotten. This along with the Rathbone version are my favorite versions. I don't understand why so many people liked the Granada version. Even though it was closer to the book, it was rather dull and poorly directed I thought. The hound it the Granada version was a downright disappoint, nowhere near as good as the one in this one. I haven't seen the Richard Roxburgh version. Ill probably review that when i can.

The Hound of the Baskervilles starts on a dark cold night, Sir Charles Baskerville (David Langton) is standing outside his huge manor house overlooking the Devonshire moors. He hears what sounds like howling over the ominous claps of thunder, he retreats into his gazebo but is attacked by a ferocious Hound. Sir Charles servants Mr (Edward Judd) & Mrs Barrymore (Eleanor Bron) hear his terrified screams & discover his dead body soon after. Dr. Mortimer (Denholm Elliott) discusses a manuscript dated from 1742 with Sherlock Holmes (Ian Richardson) which talks about a Hound of hell which curses the Baskerville family. Mortimer convinces Holmes to talk to Henry Baskerville (Martin Shaw), Sir Carles nephew & heir who is arriving from America, & give him some advice. Holmes agrees but worrying incidents being to happen, Henry receives a threatening letter & an attempt is made on his life by a mysterious man with a black beard who calls himself Sherlock Holmes. Henry plans to investigate & find out whats going on & decides to travel to the manor house. Holmes is busy on another case for at least a week so he sends Dr. Watson (Donald Churchill) to monitor the situation & keep him informed by post. When they arrive they discover that Inspector Lestrade (Ronald Lacey) from Scotland Yard is heading a manhunt for an escaped convict named Selden (Peter Rutherford) dubbed the 'Notting Hill murderer'. They also run into various other locals who all seem to have had a grudge against the Baskerville family, maybe in fact it wasn't a Hound of hell that killed Sir Charles but something or someone a lot more real...This made for T.V. adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle's famous novel was directed by Douglas Hickox & is a fantastic murder mystery that I enjoyed immensely on many levels. There are two things I must say at this point, firstly I will openly admit I've never read the literary source, & secondly I've never seen any other filmed adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I don't have a clue how closely Charles Edward Pogue's script follows the novel & to be honest I don't really care as I thought this was a cracking film in it's own right. Very few people die, the Hound is used sparingly & it's quite long but I couldn't take my eyes off it. It has strong characters even if Watson does come off as a bit of a goofish idiot on too many occasions, a great story which I was 'cold' to as it were & a real ability to draw me into the Sherlock Holmes world of mystery & intrigue. It's consistently interesting as there is barely a scene which goes by without some sort of clue or a potential suspect incriminating themselves & there were a few surprises as well that I didn't see coming but obviously I can't mention them & spoil it. Oh, & no I didn't guess the eventual outcome either which obviously helped. Another aspect of The Hound of the Baskervilles which surprised me was the production values which belie their T.V. budget limitations & origins. This particular Holmes was shot on location in Devon at Knightshayes Court, a splendid location it is too, the interior of the manor & the exterior moor shots give the film a wonderful look & feel. Some of the nighttime fog enshrouded marsh shots obviously take place in a studio but this gives these scenes another different type of atmosphere as things can be controlled more easily, director Hickox films these scenes with a blue hue throughout. I also thought technically The Hound of the Baskervilles is top notch as well, photography, costumes, editing, direction, the orchestral music score & the acting by the strong British cast which includes Glynis Barber, Brian Blessed, Connie Booth & Eric Richard is, as you would expect, solid throughout. I'm not sure how this version compares to any other, but as a stand alone murder mystery that was a first time watch for me I throughly enjoyed it. The one downside is that for me it has no repeat value as now I know the outcome that's it, it's not a surprise anymore is it? If you can watch it on T.V. for free or rent it, I don't think it's worth a purchase for the reason I've stated, then I highly recommend this version of The Hound of the Baskervilles.