The Hound of the Baskervilles Reviews

  • Feb 01, 2019

    The best thrilling mystery movie ever made! With 2 of the best movie characters ever portrayed: Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. John H. Watson!

    The best thrilling mystery movie ever made! With 2 of the best movie characters ever portrayed: Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. John H. Watson!

  • Oct 28, 2018

    One of the best in the series of films.The Baskervilles keep dying in bizarre ways and the curse of the hounds is blamed, however Holmes must stop the murder of the new owner before it is too late, but will he be in time? The moors scenes are great and it has a very creepy feel to it. An outstanding classic.

    One of the best in the series of films.The Baskervilles keep dying in bizarre ways and the curse of the hounds is blamed, however Holmes must stop the murder of the new owner before it is too late, but will he be in time? The moors scenes are great and it has a very creepy feel to it. An outstanding classic.

  • Sep 24, 2018

    One of the first and best of the Rathbone-Bruce Sherlock Holmes mysteries, produced by Twentieth Century Fox before the series moved to Universal and continued to a total of 14 films. I watched this with my two boys, aged 8 and 6, and the large cast of possible suspects and the twisty plot may have confused them - the oldest was particularly convinced that the killer was the old peddler (who turns out to be Holmes in disguise). Of course, we also needed to discuss the supernatural elements - a ghost dog and a seance to speak to the dead Sir Charles Baskerville - which we agreed were not true things. (Fortunately, no questions were asked about Holmes's final words in the film "Watson, the needle!"). To recap the plot: Holmes is recruited by a Dr Mortimer to protect Sir Henry Baskerville, nephew of the now dead Sir Charles who passed mysteriously with footprints of a giant hound near his body, when he returns to his inheritance in lonely Dartmoor, England. At once, he is subject to spooky goings-on and the threat of death; all of his neighbours are suspects, as are the suspicious house staff. Dr Watson is left to guard Sir Henry while Holmes uses all of his wiles and powers of deduction in secret. Of course, the killer is eventually outed once all the pieces fall into place. Atmospheric and fun (and a bit scary if you are six).

    One of the first and best of the Rathbone-Bruce Sherlock Holmes mysteries, produced by Twentieth Century Fox before the series moved to Universal and continued to a total of 14 films. I watched this with my two boys, aged 8 and 6, and the large cast of possible suspects and the twisty plot may have confused them - the oldest was particularly convinced that the killer was the old peddler (who turns out to be Holmes in disguise). Of course, we also needed to discuss the supernatural elements - a ghost dog and a seance to speak to the dead Sir Charles Baskerville - which we agreed were not true things. (Fortunately, no questions were asked about Holmes's final words in the film "Watson, the needle!"). To recap the plot: Holmes is recruited by a Dr Mortimer to protect Sir Henry Baskerville, nephew of the now dead Sir Charles who passed mysteriously with footprints of a giant hound near his body, when he returns to his inheritance in lonely Dartmoor, England. At once, he is subject to spooky goings-on and the threat of death; all of his neighbours are suspects, as are the suspicious house staff. Dr Watson is left to guard Sir Henry while Holmes uses all of his wiles and powers of deduction in secret. Of course, the killer is eventually outed once all the pieces fall into place. Atmospheric and fun (and a bit scary if you are six).

  • Sep 04, 2018

    Brilliant version of the classic tale. Basil Rathbone an excellent Holmes.

    Brilliant version of the classic tale. Basil Rathbone an excellent Holmes.

  • Nov 20, 2016

    Simply one of the greatest detective come horror movies ever made. Dripping with amazing atmosphere and Rathbone/Bruce at the top of their game.

    Simply one of the greatest detective come horror movies ever made. Dripping with amazing atmosphere and Rathbone/Bruce at the top of their game.

  • Oct 23, 2016

    Great mood and atmosphere throughout!

    Great mood and atmosphere throughout!

  • Apr 07, 2016

    With many of these classic films I feel like I'm missing something by not seeing them in context of the era they were released. This movie was widely acclaimed as one of the great film interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, yet I had some serious issues with it. Before we go into the flaws I found in the film, I should detail the things I enjoyed. First of all, Basil Rathbone was very charming as Sherlock Holmes. I liked how he portrayed Holmes as an eccentric, but also intelligent and mentally superior to others around him. I always enjoy murder mysteries and specifically Sherlock Holmes stories, so the puzzle of trying to figure out whodunit was fun. The execution of the dog attack scene was brilliantly done. My love of dogs often causes me to find their viciousness on film unconvincing, but this one looked and acted seriously violent. I had genuine concern for the character (and whatever actor/stuntman actually participated in that sequence) so it was a great moment of the movie that had me holding my breath. Now to walk through a laundry list of struggles I had with The Hound of the Baskervilles: There were a number of character motivations and other actions in the film that didn't make sense to me. Sherlock abandoning a man he was trying to protect was irresponsible at best, and his justification was poorly thought out. Several people making treks across the moor were dumb, as if there was no other method of transportation. While the solution to the mystery made sense to me, I felt there was no way we could deduce that solution from watching, I prefer a mystery that leaves the viewer a few breadcrumbs for us to puzzle through. For a Sherlock Holmes story, he is not in the story for a very long time, which irritates me immensely. The amount of time spent bouncing back and forth between sets was almost comical. It's like the entire movie could be plotted on a zigzagging graph of indoor scene, then moor scene, then indoor scene, then moor scene. It just seemed like they could have rewritten some of it and accomplished more in a single trip through the moor rather than constantly coming back and then going out again. Easily my biggest struggle, though, was with the dialogue. There was something in the delivery, and in the way it was written that felt so artificial. It never for a moment felt like I was watching a character talk about something, I was merely watching actors deliver lines. In many ways, it came across like it was a stage play, a pretty good one but not really a cinematic experience.

    With many of these classic films I feel like I'm missing something by not seeing them in context of the era they were released. This movie was widely acclaimed as one of the great film interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, yet I had some serious issues with it. Before we go into the flaws I found in the film, I should detail the things I enjoyed. First of all, Basil Rathbone was very charming as Sherlock Holmes. I liked how he portrayed Holmes as an eccentric, but also intelligent and mentally superior to others around him. I always enjoy murder mysteries and specifically Sherlock Holmes stories, so the puzzle of trying to figure out whodunit was fun. The execution of the dog attack scene was brilliantly done. My love of dogs often causes me to find their viciousness on film unconvincing, but this one looked and acted seriously violent. I had genuine concern for the character (and whatever actor/stuntman actually participated in that sequence) so it was a great moment of the movie that had me holding my breath. Now to walk through a laundry list of struggles I had with The Hound of the Baskervilles: There were a number of character motivations and other actions in the film that didn't make sense to me. Sherlock abandoning a man he was trying to protect was irresponsible at best, and his justification was poorly thought out. Several people making treks across the moor were dumb, as if there was no other method of transportation. While the solution to the mystery made sense to me, I felt there was no way we could deduce that solution from watching, I prefer a mystery that leaves the viewer a few breadcrumbs for us to puzzle through. For a Sherlock Holmes story, he is not in the story for a very long time, which irritates me immensely. The amount of time spent bouncing back and forth between sets was almost comical. It's like the entire movie could be plotted on a zigzagging graph of indoor scene, then moor scene, then indoor scene, then moor scene. It just seemed like they could have rewritten some of it and accomplished more in a single trip through the moor rather than constantly coming back and then going out again. Easily my biggest struggle, though, was with the dialogue. There was something in the delivery, and in the way it was written that felt so artificial. It never for a moment felt like I was watching a character talk about something, I was merely watching actors deliver lines. In many ways, it came across like it was a stage play, a pretty good one but not really a cinematic experience.

  • Feb 27, 2016

    Love it. The one and only SH till Jeremy Brett came alongð???

    Love it. The one and only SH till Jeremy Brett came alongð???

  • Jan 22, 2016

    Directed by Sidney Lanfield, (You'll Never Get Rich (1941) and The Lemon Drop Kid (1951)), and based on the 1902 novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this adaptation marked the first of 14 Sherlock Holmes films that would star Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. It's a good adaptation, done with a good cast, but the film ends too abruptly compared to other adaptations. It begins when Doctor Mortimer (Lionel Atwill) comes to London to see Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) regarding a case about the Baskerville family, and a curse that's hung over the family, including that of a demonic hound which has prowled the moors near the family home. Holmes sends Watson (Bruce) out to the Baskerville family estate to investigate. The last Baskerville heir, Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene) has just arrived in England to claim his right to the estate and fortune. Holmes notices that nothing is what it seems with the family, and that they all have secrets to hide. Then Holmes turns up, and someone seems to want to have Holmes killed. It was made in Hollywood at a time when a load of films set in England were made in America, but this one is done convincingly, to a point. Rathbone makes a good Holmes, and the story is well made, but the following films were done as B movies, and don't reach the quality this film achieved.

    Directed by Sidney Lanfield, (You'll Never Get Rich (1941) and The Lemon Drop Kid (1951)), and based on the 1902 novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this adaptation marked the first of 14 Sherlock Holmes films that would star Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. It's a good adaptation, done with a good cast, but the film ends too abruptly compared to other adaptations. It begins when Doctor Mortimer (Lionel Atwill) comes to London to see Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) regarding a case about the Baskerville family, and a curse that's hung over the family, including that of a demonic hound which has prowled the moors near the family home. Holmes sends Watson (Bruce) out to the Baskerville family estate to investigate. The last Baskerville heir, Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene) has just arrived in England to claim his right to the estate and fortune. Holmes notices that nothing is what it seems with the family, and that they all have secrets to hide. Then Holmes turns up, and someone seems to want to have Holmes killed. It was made in Hollywood at a time when a load of films set in England were made in America, but this one is done convincingly, to a point. Rathbone makes a good Holmes, and the story is well made, but the following films were done as B movies, and don't reach the quality this film achieved.

  • Jan 01, 2016

    This moody and atmospheric 1939 adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes novel "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is fairly true to the source material, and as a result it is one of the most popular screen versions of the character. Rathbone and Bruce (this is their first of what would be 14 film outings and radio show in the roles) both turn in solid and accurate performances of their novel counterparts. The movie works for me because that gloomy black and white cinematography with the fog constantly rolling in captures the look of the moors as I imagined when I read the book. Plus it looks like a Universal Horror film from that era in film. As you'd expect, some liberties were taking from the book, but it remains mostly true to the source, and it is an enjoyable film on it's own.

    This moody and atmospheric 1939 adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes novel "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is fairly true to the source material, and as a result it is one of the most popular screen versions of the character. Rathbone and Bruce (this is their first of what would be 14 film outings and radio show in the roles) both turn in solid and accurate performances of their novel counterparts. The movie works for me because that gloomy black and white cinematography with the fog constantly rolling in captures the look of the moors as I imagined when I read the book. Plus it looks like a Universal Horror film from that era in film. As you'd expect, some liberties were taking from the book, but it remains mostly true to the source, and it is an enjoyable film on it's own.