The Hound of the Baskervilles
Tags: murder, haunting

Plot synopsis:
Dr James Mortimer asks Sherlock Holmes to investigate the death of his friend, Sir Charles Baskerville. Sir Charles was found dead on the grounds of his Devonshire estate, Baskerville Hall, and Mortimer now fears for Sir Charles's nephew and sole heir, Sir Henry Baskerville, who is the new master of Baskerville Hall. The death was attributed to a heart attack, but Mortimer is suspicious, because Sir Charles died with an expression of horror on his face, and Mortimer noticed "the footprints of a gigantic hound" nearby. The Baskerville family has supposedly been under a curse since the era of the English Civil War when ancestor Hugo Baskerville allegedly offered his soul to the devil for help in abducting a woman and was reportedly killed by a giant spectral hound. Sir Charles believed in the curse and was apparently fleeing from something in fright when he died.
Intrigued, Holmes meets with Sir Henry, newly arrived from Canada. Sir Henry has received an anonymous note, cut and pasted from newsprint, warning him away from the Baskerville moors, and one of his new boots is inexplicably missing from his London hotel room. The Baskerville family is discussed: Sir Charles was the eldest of three brothers; the youngest, black sheep Rodger, is believed to have died childless in South America, while Sir Henry is the only child of the middle brother. Sir Henry plans to move into Baskerville Hall, despite the ominous warning message. Holmes and Dr Watson follow him from Holmes's Baker Street apartment back to his hotel and notice a bearded man following him in a cab; they pursue the man, but he escapes. Mortimer tells them that Mr Barrymore, the butler at Baskerville Hall, has a beard like the one on the stranger. Sir Henry's boot reappears, but an older one vanishes.
Holmes sends for the cab driver who shuttled the bearded man after Sir Henry and is both astounded and amused to learn that the stranger had made a point of giving his name as 'Sherlock Holmes' to the cabbie. Holmes, now even more interested in the Baskerville affair but held up with other cases, dispatches Watson to accompany Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall with instructions to send him frequent reports about the house, grounds, and neighbours. Upon arrival at the grand but austere Baskerville estate, Watson and Sir Henry learn that an escaped murderer named Selden is believed to be in the area.
Barrymore and his wife, who also works at Baskerville Hall, wish to leave the estate soon. Watson hears a woman crying in the night; it is obvious to him that it was Mrs Barrymore, but her husband denies it. Watson has no proof that Barrymore was in Devon on the day of the chase in London. He meets a brother and sister who live nearby: Mr Stapleton, a naturalist, and the beautiful Miss Stapleton. When an animalistic sound is heard, Stapleton is quick to dismiss it as unrelated to the legendary hound. When her brother is out of earshot, Mrs Stapleton mistakes Watson for Sir Henry and warns him to leave. She and Sir Henry later meet and quickly fall in love, arousing Stapleton's anger; he later apologises and invites Sir Henry to dine with him a few days later.
Barrymore arouses further suspicion when Watson and Sir Henry catch him at night with a candle in an empty room. Barrymore refuses to answer their questions, but Mrs. Barrymore confesses that Selden is her brother, and her husband is signalling that they have left supplies for him. Watson and Sir Henry pursue Selden on the moor, but he eludes them, while Watson notices another man on a nearby tor. After an agreement is reached to allow Selden to flee the country, Barrymore reveals the contents of an incompletely burnt letter asking Sir Charles to be at the gate at the time of his death. It was signed with the initials L.L.; on Mortimer's advice, Watson questions a Laura Lyons, who admits to writing the letter in hopes that Sir Charles would help finance her divorce, but says she did not keep the appointment. Watson tracks the second man he saw in the area and discovers it to be Holmes, investigating independently in hopes of a faster resolution. Holmes reveals further information: Stapleton is actually married to the supposed Miss Stapleton, and he promised marriage to Laura Lyons to get her cooperation.
They hear a scream and discover the body of Selden, dead from a fall. They initially mistake him for Sir Henry, whose old clothes he was wearing.
At Baskerville Hall, Holmes notices a resemblance between Stapleton and a portrait of Hugo Baskerville. He realises that Stapleton could be an unknown Baskerville family member, seeking to claim the Baskerville wealth by eliminating his relatives. Accompanied by Inspector Lestrade, whom Holmes has summoned, Holmes and Watson travel to the Stapleton home, where Sir Henry is dining. They rescue him from a hound that Stapleton releases while Sir Henry is walking home across the moor. Shooting the animal dead in the struggle, Sherlock reveals that it was a perfectly mortal dog - a mix of bloodhound and mastiff, painted with phosphorus to give it a hellish appearance. They find Miss Stapleton bound and gagged inside the house, while Stapleton apparently dies in an attempt to reach his hideout in a nearby mine. They also find Sir Henry's boot, which was used to give the hound Sir Henry's scent.
Weeks later, Holmes provides Watson with additional details about the case. Stapleton was, in fact, Rodger Baskerville's son, also named Rodger. His now-widow is a South American woman, the former Beryl Garcia. He supported himself through crime for many years, before learning that he could inherit a fortune by murdering his uncle and cousin. Stapleton had taken Sir Henry's old boot because the new, unworn boot lacked his scent. The hound had pursued Selden to his death because of the scent on Sir Henry's old clothes. Mrs Stapleton had disavowed her husband's plot, so he had imprisoned her to prevent her from interfering.
The story ends with Holmes and Watson leaving to see the opera Les Huguenots starring Jean de Reszke.

Review: one of my favorites.
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!.
I beg to differ.
This production was by far the best of the films made of this story.
I did not laugh at all.
In fact I would like to own a VHS or a DVD of this film, if possible!I loved all the movies featuring Stewart Granger, he was a captivating star!
I also liked the actor Ian Ireland, who played Sir Henry.
The photography was very good and the film created an ambiance/mood befitting this mystery.
Despite the fact that it has been many years since I have seen it and I am not really able to point out specific details, I can safely say that this was an entertaining movie..
the funniest sherlock holmes movie ever!.
This film is cheap, nasty and very funny.
William Shatner at his plank-like best.
Why Stuart Grainger ever got involved with this dog, is a mystery of the first order.
The sets steal the show, the major laugh coming from the use of old cowboy film sets to represent a Dartmoor village!
Too many liberties taken with the original story to mention, but I was not the only one who lost the plot, so did the director.A major insult to Arthur Conan Doyle, but a bloody good chortle for anyone who doesn't take their Holmsian epics too seriously..
a proposed mystery series....
I remember even the TV promo for this turkey.
Not only did it feature a white haired Sherlock Holmes, but a boring over the top Dr. Watson.The mystery as handled badly and the most amazing part of it all was that was a pilot to a rotating series of detective characters including Ross Martin as Charlie Chan.
I m glad that never happened and I am a hardcore Sherlock Holmes fan.
For the record, Peter Crushing and Nigel Stock are the very best of Holmes and Watson ever...
even better than Basil and Nigel, or Jeremy Brett and either of his Watsons.
Just saying.Having said all of that, I would Ike to own a DVD of the film just because I am a completist..Maybe even a bit of a glutton for punishment..
But there is One Saving Grace....
...And that's an aspect of the set design- one tiny thing, mind you- the background painting of St Paul's Cathedral behind Baker Street, that gives the impression that Holmes lives on a hill overlooking London.
It's irrelevant to most people, but for me that's a nugget of accidental genius that sums up how I feel about Holmes...
the watchful guardian etc etc.Apart from that, yes it's crap..
Not the real thing.
And that is understated!
The film does take a lot of liberty with the original story.
Stewart Granger who might not be a bad actor after all is certainly not a Shelock Holmes.
And who in those days would have appointed a person as looking like Mortimer as Medical officer of any district in those days.
I mean - why create a mysterious character where there is no need of one.
One thing however is remarkable in this case.
According to the book Mortimer is "a fellow under thirty".
Anthony Zerbe was 36 when this film  was made.
Still older than the original Mortimer yet younger than Lionel Atwill in the film from '39 who was then 54 or Francis de Wolff who was 46 in 59 when Terence Fisher chose to make his film or Denholm Elliot in the '83 version who was then already 61.
The Set has been commented on in several critics and there is nothing much to add to this.
The costumes are all right, I guess (even if it seems that the whole male population of London was wearing Inverness Capes) but why did Holmes have to wear that ridiculous Bow-Tie in the beginning.
One thing however should be mentioned:  Bernard Fox. I have not seen any other performances of his but I did like him  as Watson.
He is not quite the bumbler as in many other Holmes films but has in fact some rather bright moments in this one.
Anyway he is not unlike the Paget Watson..
Decent TV movie-of-the-week.
Not a classic to be sure, but a decent TV movie-of-the-week adaptation of the oft-filmed Conan Doyle novel.
Although it departs somewhat from the book, all the essential elements of the story are there.
The cast does its best, and Granger makes an interesting Holmes.
It would have been nice to have seen him as the Great Detective in other movies; he really was a class act.
As noted by others, Bernard Fox is a more than adequate Dr. Watson.
The costumes and sets are also good for a made-for-TV production of this era.
But that music!
You'd think that with the entire Universal Studios library of music at their disposal, the producers could have chosen more appropriate themes and cues!At about 72 minutes, this brief version of a classic mystery makes an enjoyable time-filler; suitable for family viewing..
Bad version of a favourite old chestnut.
This is the umpteenth version of a popular Conan Doyle mystery novel, featuring the legendary Sherlock Holmes and his assistant Watson.
Unfortunately, this is the poorest version of the story of the lot, with terribly miscast actors struggling to contend with an amateurish script.
Shatner and Zerbe in particular look misplaced amid the period trappings, but even Granger (as Holmes) doesn't seem to fit, in spite of his classical English accent.Even the music for the movie is plundered from Cape Fear.
If you want to see a good Sherlock Holmes movie, stick with the Basil Rathbone series....
this is the pits!.
I loved this version best of all!.
Actually I watched it when I was very young with my Mom and it scared me!
I never forgot it and I was hoping someone here would know where I could get a DVD copy of it for my Mom's birthday in March!
Anybody?
I would really appreciate it!
I have looked and looked to no avail.
Please let me know as soon as possible~ Thank you!
I know my Mom will love it!
I am sure there is someone out there who has this DVD!
Just sitting on a shelf somewhere!
I just wanted to ask this one question but it says I cant post it at all till I make ten whole lines of text so please pardon the rambling lol!
Thank you~.
Thank you~.
Thank you~.
Thank you~.
Thank you~.
The Hound Of The Baskervilles {TV} (Barry Crane, 1972) **1/2.
This is clearly the most popular Sherlock Holmes adventure, since it is the one most actors choose in order to showcase their suitability for the role (notably Basil Rathbone at Universal and Peter Cushing for Hammer) and was even plundered for spoofing purposes in 1978!
With this in mind, it is small wonder that Stewart Granger, too, has turned up in an adaptation; the end result, however, was very much disliked by Leonard Maltin – rating it 'Below Average' and accorded the unenviable epithet "for masochists only"!
Still, all things considered, its main fault is that of being thoroughly superfluous – with no new take on the narrative (apart from presenting us with the first white-haired Holmes!) and, worse, ripping off Dr. Watson's buffoonish characterization straight from Nigel Bruce!
If anything, the film-makers have managed to recruit a serviceable cast (including a fine Anthony Zerbe as a limping and henpecked{!} doctor, a wasted Jane Merrow and Sally Ann Howes, a grumpy John Williams, and a surprisingly restrained William Shatner in a dual role), while the titular beast looks vicious enough (unlike some of the better versions, admittedly!) – what is more, this is certainly proof that, in some cases, the plot really is the thing (as the saying goes)....
Well, not a total dog....
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..
The Hound of the Baskervilles.
The Hound of the Baskervilles.
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..
a TV B movie.
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.