The Hound of the Baskervilles
Tags: paranormal

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: Just a few quick words to summarize my experience sitting through what looked to be a promising parody by a couple of generally very funny and talented men - Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.
The rest of the film really became an onerous chore to sit through and only and I mean ONLY was saved by the promise of seeing some great British character actors and funny men/ladies in bit parts.
Peter Cook plays Sherlock Holmes and really misses the character entirely, but he need not fear because Dudley Moore as Watson with a hideous Scottish brogue is even worse.
Maybe some more realistic characterizations and less broad, really broad, and embarrassingly broad portrayals by Cook and Moore and Griffith as a man with a young girlfriend with the bust of a popular stripper and who enjoys throwing chunks of meat on the moors, Joan Greenwood, yes, Joan Greenwood, vomiting pea soup with spinning head, and Kenneth Williams really going over the top- even for him - toning it down a bit and making their characters a bit more believable might have helped.
Their work with Beyond and Fringe and later 'Not Only but Also' and 'Derek and Clive' is unimpeachable and they had impressive solo CVs. But in 1978 some kind of evil curse seemed to be floating about given that this year also saw the release of 'Sergeant Pepper The Movie' Renaldo and Clara AND the 'Star Wars' Thanksgiving Special.
Paul Morrisey decided to direct this Holmes and Watson spoof without making up his mind whether it would be sea-side English bawdiness in the Carry On style or Pythonesque anarchism.
But it is Dud and Pete who really disappoint, affecting (for no apparent reason) Welsh and Stage Jewish accents with Moore playing Cook's insane mother, a potential comedy winner that instead simply irritates.
Elsewhere, Denholm Elliot's urinating dog spraying Moore in the face simply causes the viewer to avert his or her eyes while reheated sketches from their 1960s show (i.e the one legged runner) only underscore the movie's lack of invention.
Paul Morrissey evidently had all the wrong ideas about how to film a comedy and how to illicit comedic performances; he is following the Carry On formula, but this film considerably outstrips the majority of those in terms of the cringe-worthy.
The veteran comic talents of Max Wall - barely in the film, much to his overwhelming relief I suspect - Joan Greenwood, Cook, Moore and Spike Milligan are frittered away carelessly, and allowed to dissolve in an acrid bath of self-abuse.
The ageing Greenwood is given an appallingly crass role and embarrassing 'things to do'; Terry-Thomas, clearly an ill man by all accounts at this time, looks completely out of it: a saddening sight.
Such a waste considering the ill-tapped talent the man clearly had; it is hardly surprising to read his increasing despondency about this project in his diaries.Apparently, Pete n' Dud had a hand in the script-writing, but it really doesn't show; this is committee stuff to the letter, including 'topical' take-offs of "The Exorcist" (1973) as well as the spirit-crushingly inept attempts to 'emulate' the Carry Ons. There are, at best, perhaps one or two middling gags of theirs that surface, but they seem hopelessly out of kilter with the film's remainder.
Moore is worse, faring poorly as an inept, 'Welsh' Holmes; never once amusing.This truly is a dire, unspeakable film.
Cook and Moore didn't have the creative control they should have done, and for whatever reason didn't feel able to pull the plug when it was clear that things were going horribly wrong.The main problem is that Paul Morrissey has no clue about how Pete & Dud's humour works.
This leads him to try and shoehorn them into his idea of "Carry on Sherlock" (a genre which he also fatally misunderstands).Worse, much of Pete & Dud's groundbreaking work from the 60's is recycled in debased form - notably the one-legged man auditioning for the part of Tarzan.I didn't even make it all the way through this when it was on TV a while back.
Following the rudimentary outline of Conan Doyle's famous Sherlock Holmes tale, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore concoct a feast of comical whimsy.
A misguided attempt to present a comic parody of the Conan Doyle tale, with Peter Cook as Sherlock Holmes and Dudley Moore as Dr Watson.
Moore also plays Holmes' mother (!) and in this guise, is possibly the best thing in the film.
Written by and starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, who have done many wonderful things, this is such a total misfire that one can only stare in disbelief.
The "humor" is very broad, with Dudley putting on a moronic accent and Cook playing Holmes with seemingly no clear idea of what his character is or how he wants to approach him.
I'm amazed that most of the people who saw this film, thought it was terrible, i have to say, that this was the first film i ever saw of Cook & Moore, and i enjoyed it thoroughly, i know little about direction and all the technical sides to a film, but i know what makes me laugh, and this certainly did....The scene where Holmes has a massage, Max Wall & Roy Kinner flashing, the classic one leg joke, and Moore playing Holmes's psychic mother, who call's Shelock 'Shirl'How can people take a film so silly so serious.This film turned me into a Cook & Moore fan, it cant be that bad...Watch without prejudice!!.
A wonderful cast are here involved in what must be the lowest point in all their careers.For some reason Dudley Moore plays Dr.Watson as a high voiced Welshman,and Peter Cook gives Holmes a "stage Jewish" accent!Made up of series of draggy sketches,everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown into the pot-including "The Exorcist" and Pete and Dud's "one leg short" sketch;the result is an incoherent mess.Most potentially amusing moments are killed dead by the sloppy approach of Paul Morrissey's direction.No attempt is made to capture the mystery of the original story, and the players shout,mug and flail around among pathetic threadbare sets.According to Harry Thompson's biography of Cook,Pete and Dud were deeply unhappy about Morrissey's approach to the material,and saw they'd got themselves into a disaster.No wonder the off screen audience throw rotten vegetables at Dudley at the end.A truly stupid film.
And, if I didn't know it was supposed to be a comedy, I just assumed the people making the film hated Arthur Conan Doyle and his fans and simply made the film to make them angry.
Second, the stars, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, are dreadful.
Astonishingly Bad. This Paul Morrissey film adaptation of Sir Athur Conan Doyle's mystery masterpiece is the single worst literary adaptation I have ever seen and one of the worst movies I have ever sat through.
The film stars Dudley Moore and Peter Cook, but its all rubbish.
First off, it has to said that the Cook-Moore contribution to postwar British comedy is immeasurable and would probably fit in third place after the Pythons and Goons.
The falsetto Welsh accent of Watson (Moore) and the stage Jewish accent of Holmes (Cook) simply irritate and a very strong cast is completely wasted.
Meanwhile, the look of the movie is cheap and stagey while Moore's piano score is out of place in a comedy.
Hound of the Baskervilles, The (1978) BOMB (out of 4)As a fan of bad movies I quite often find myself trying to track down and locate some of the worst films ever made.
We have Peter Cook playing Holmes and Dudley Moore playing Watson but it really doesn't matter because I think anyone could have been in the roles and things would have been bad no matter what.
Cook, Moore and director Morrissey wrote the screenplay her and I can't help but picture the three of them sitting around, passing a joint and laughing their heads off at what they were writing.
There must be something terribly wrong with a spoof of a famous literary source (that has also managed to rope in a roster of star comedians) if its biggest laughs are provided by the straight actors' willingness to be embarrassed as they had never been before and, worse still, that these same gags are completely extraneous to the narrative and are even repeated twice in the film!
Nevertheless, they did have the good sense to go for Holmes' most famous case and engage the services of that afore-mentioned impressive cast: Peter Cook (as Holmes), Dudley Moore (as, among others, Dr. Watson), Kenneth Williams (as Sir Henry Baskerville), Terry-Thomas (as Dr. Mortimer), Denholm Elliott (as Stapleton), Joan Greenwood (as Ms. Stapleton), Roy Kinnear (as the escaped convict Selden), Hugh Griffith (as a poacher), Spike Milligan (in an irrelevant cameo as a cop on the moors), etc.The blame for this dreadful debacle should be laid squarely at the feet of Cook and Moore who, with Andy Warhol's in-house director Paul Morrissey, concocted the deadly script (described by Williams himself in his personal letters as "a hodgepodge of rubbish").
But this is undoubtedly much worse: in the original story, Sherlock Holmes disappears for a long period of time but here they insist in keeping track of his whereabouts  visits to a massage parlor (given him by three fat and hirsute women) and to his mediumistic mother (also played by Moore!), masquerading in a false beard at an auction, etc.
Indeed, Moore (apart from being co-screenwriter and composer) has four distinct roles in the film that also include an irrelevant bit as a one-legged man applying for the position of a "runner" at Holmes' office and a piano player supposedly accompanying live a screening of the film and being pelted with vegetables by a disapproving audience at the end of it!
Truly a case of a hounded (by the way, the 'monster' itself is here no bigger than any normal muttas if anyone was truly expecting anything fearsome and, rather than attack Sir Henry, it actually befriends him at first sight!) movie through and through.P.S. Recently, I was stunned to learn that a friend of mine had tried watching Billy Wilder's ill-fated but nonetheless revered THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1970) and found it "revolting" (and he's usually a big fan of the director!); I really have to wonder, at this point, just what he'd make of this one!.
The Hound of the Baskervilles is never realises its comedy potential as a vehicle for Dudley Moore and Peter Cook.
You rather wish the film had been directed by a heavy weight like Richard Lester or Blake Edwards or Cook and Moore themselves.
At times the movie doesn't know whether it wants to be Monty Python smart or Carry On Corny, and so alot of the ideas that worked brilliantly on Cook and Moores Behind/Beyond the Fringe Days and Not Only But Also dont work here.
Dudley holds his own against British comedy greats such as Kenneth Williams(brilliant in the film), Terry-Thomas and Spike Milligan.
Peter Cook is quite good as Sherlock Holmes, certainly looks the part and given the chance would have made a very good Holmes in a better movie.
But it's Dudleys film, he is the one who makes it work, and things where abi=out to get very interesting for him over the next decade..
Until then, we'll have to go with my initial, head-spinning thoughts on the movie.To say this adaptation of the classic Arthur Conan Doyle story (screenplay by director Morrissey and co-stars Dudley Moore and Peter Cook) is terrible is an understatement.
The look of the film is drab and unattractive, the pacing is slow and the filmmaking is sloppy and scattershot to the point of seeming downright amateurish.Moore and Cook, two comic geniuses, enthusiastically dive into their characters but cannot wring any joy or even mild amusement out of the material.
I thought the pee pee scene was hilarious, and I enjoyed the homages to Moore's and Cook's other works.
With such a classic story, turned on its head in a comedic way (different and could have been funny), and with an array of fine talent with great experience in comedy, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' could have worked as a guilty pleasure.
Also on its own terms and a comedy and as a film.One of the worst and most shameful wastes of talent there's been and the tagline "Sherlock Holmes has never been like this" doesn't lie, and that is not in a good way.
Can't think of many good things here, Denholm Elliot doesn't come over as badly as the others and does his best, so that's one thing in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' favour.Rest of the cast are used poorly and the broadness of the style of the acting goes well overboard and often in a vulgar way.
Peter Cook overdoes it and brings no subtlety or nuance whatsoever to balance out the trying-too-hard nature of his acting, while Dudley Moore is an embarrassment.
There are a lot of familiar faces but as said they are generally wasted (Terry-Thomas deserved a much better final film than this, easily one of the worst final films for any actor, and Spike Milligan is even more wronged), stuck in crass roles (Joan Greenwood in one of the film's most distasteful opening scenes) or made to go far too over-the-top to painful degrees (Kenneth Williams).Production values are amateurishly shabby to the extent one has to check that the film was from 1978, it sure doesn't look like it and actually looks worse than most 1950s films.
The one legged man comes off least badly but still doesn't work, due to the overlong repetition and that it feels like a re-hash of earlier Cook/Moore material.
Peter Cook & Dudley Moore at there best & silliest!
'Peter Cook & Dudley Moore' must also be counted amongst the all-time greats for such films as 'The Hound of the Baskervilles and Bedazzled (the original one, not the remake!).
After seven years of searching I am still unable to find a video of this hilarious spoof which contains some truly classic comedy moments..The runner, the incontinent dog, Watsons welsh accent are all gems as well as the usual madcap style of Spike Milligan as the policeman.
I've seen it many times & count it among the funniest movies I've ever seen.It is surreal, absurd & profoundly silly in the way that Cook & Moore's 'Derek & Clive' were masters of.
Peter Cook is hilarious as Sherlock Holmes, not the typical portrayal of the super sleuth that we know and love.
Dudley Moore plays two roles, one as a confused Watson, and also Sherlock Holmes' irascible mother.
Highlights include Holmes putting out a help wanted ad for a "runner of errands" and getting only a one-legged man to apply; Denholm Elliott's pet chihuahua who happens to be quite incontinent, especially around poor Watson; and finally, a scene that appears to be inspired by the Exorcist and presumably penned by Andy Warhol's director Paul Morrissey.
actually it is stupid, but its peter cook and dudley moore...what did you expect?.
Peter Cook summed up the problems with this would-be-outrageous parody of the Sherlock Holmes stories during an interview with comedy historian Roger Wilmut.
In short, Paul Morrissey - best known for his occasionally engaging collaborations with Andy Warhol - was a big fan of British comedy, and apparently enjoyed cordial relationships with most of the performers on the set, but asking him to actually direct a British comedy was like asking Cook to direct an improvised film about homeless junkies in Los Angeles - not at all compatible.
Cook plays Holmes with a muted Jewish accent, Moore plays Watson with a slightly amusing Welsh accent, and the rest of the cast are left to fend for themselves.
In fact, it's worth persevering with this one just to see Terry-Thomas, Spike Milligan, Joan Greenwood, Hugh Griffith, Henry Woolf and all the other lovely old comedians and character actors who seem to pop up in cameo roles every few minutes.
With all the comic talent from the British Isles gathered into one film the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore version of The Hound Of The Baskervilles should have come out better than it was.
Far from the best of Peter and Dudley, but it wasn't all that bad.Certainly Baker Street purists will be offended, but they're always offended in the least deviation of a Sherlock Holmes story.
Peter Cook is as usual a most detached Sherlock Holmes, but not because he's constantly analyzing.
And the man needs a vacation so he goes to Paris to sow a little bit of his version of wild oats.As Holmes fans know, he does dispatch Watson out to Baskerville Hall to lay the ground work while he dons disguise.
The time apart from Watson here though introduces the comedy team of Dudley Moore and Kenneth Williams of the Carry On series.
Well let's say he's been ballyhooed quite a bit.This isn't the best work of Cook and Moore, but it's not all that bad..
I've seen a number of different film adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles, so I thought I might enjoy a spoof of this familiar story.
Also, I've seen some of the other work Peter Cook and Dudley Moore did together and thought they might have a chance at success with such a project.
I can't imagine how two talented individuals like Cook and Moore could have concocted such a disaster of a film.
In addition to Cook and Moore, there's a good cast assembled including Joan Greenwood, Denholm Elliot, Hugh Griffith, and the usually entertaining Terry-Thomas.
i mean come on, it had a screenplay written by Dudley Moore and the brilliant Peter Cook, who also give hilarious comic performances as Watson and Holmes.
i love it when Baskerville is insulted and he screams indignantly, "OH!HOW MEAN!".i thought the Chihauhau humour was a little too gross to watch at times, and for anyone who has seen this movie, of course those ain't Chihuahua's.