The Hound of the Baskervilles

1972
5.8| 1h14m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 12 February 1972 Released
Producted By: Universal Television
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Holmes and Dr. Watson tackle the case of a curse on the Baskerville bloodline in this ABC Movie of the Week adaptation.

Genre

Horror, Crime, Mystery

Watch Online

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1972) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Barry Crane

Production Companies

Universal Television

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
The Hound of the Baskervilles Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

The Hound of the Baskervilles Audience Reviews

Pluskylang Great Film overall
Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film
Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.
John Wayne Peel 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.
witsend64 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.
ilania_a 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.
ChrisHawk78 And that is understated! The film does take a lot of liberty with the original story. But not only that. 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.