5/10
Slow paced and unexciting version of the tale
31 July 2016
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.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed