I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Terence Fisher directed this first cinematic Sherlock Holmes adventure to be filmed in color, which fortunately doesn't destroy any atmosphere, but enhances it. Peter Cushing stars as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated detective, with Andre Morel cast as Doctor John Watson, and Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville, who consults Holmes, as he is about to inherit his family estate on the English moors, but has been receiving death threats, and is also bothered by the rumored family curse involving a huge hound that stalks the Baskerville descendants... Exciting and well directed film with fine performances; does take some needless liberties with the novel, but still remains a most effective and entertaining Hammer studios adaptation, the only one made unfortunately.

The book has been one of my favorites since childhood. The best thing about this version is the prologue, by far the most impressive visualization of the legend that I have seen. Also, there is much detail to watch throughout. But far too many liberties have been taken with the plot. The ones that annoyed me most were 1) making Sir Henry a heart patient and Miss Stapleton a murderess - so much for their love story; 2) the occult theme that goes nowhere. Who dragged Selden's body to the altar and sacrificed it, and why? I hoped it would turn out to be the Bishop... and 3) making Dr. Mortimer a suspect. Why would he have involved Holmes in the first place, if he had crimes to hide?The casting is really awful. I may respect Peter Cushing in other films, but he is simply the WRONG actor to play Holmes: too short, too weak and old-looking. Christopher Lee should have played Holmes (he did in the 1962 film "Sherlock Holmes and the Necklace of Death") and Cushing should should have been Dr. Mortimer, if he really was needed here. Andre Morell is bland as Watson, and incompetent too: as soon as he is warned about the swamp he steps in it and has to be rescued by the villains! Some protector for Sir Henry.

Hammer Films intended, in this stylish and well-appointed remake of the 1939 Basil Rathbone classic, to begin a whole cycle of Sherlock Holmes movies. Unfortunately the box-office returns were slightly disappointing, probably due to the story being over-familiar than anything they did wrong; and while this remains the only Hammer Sherlock it's certainly one of their finest efforts.Peter Cushing was a natural for the part of Holmes, and here he is re-teamed with Christopher Lee for the 3rd time in a Hammer movie. Andre Morrell is a far superior Dr. Watson to Nigel Bruce's buffoonish turn, and the film beautifully captures the richly Gothic atmosphere of Conan Doyle's most famous story.Of course this being Hammer they introduced even more horror overtones than the story already has; David Oxley's Sir Hugo Baskerville is one of the nastiest aristocrats ever put on screen. In a splendid opening prologue concerning the legend of the hound we discover just WHY the Baskerville family is haunted by a curse, and Oxley plays it for all he is worth.Cushing is ably supported by the rest of the cast: from Francis De Wolff's splendidly arrogant Dr. Mortimer to John Le Mesurier's furtive Barrymore the acting is great. Another priceless turn by Miles Malleson as Bishop Frankland supplies the humour.But what really sticks in my mind is Jack Asher's wonderful cinematography and Bernard Robinson's cleverly constructed sets. Terence Fisher again directs with aplomb. I only wish the movie had been more successful so Hammer could have made follow-ups. Splendid stuff.

An old production of the BBC, but quite feasible still today. Don't expect special effects of course but the story is told just nice and clean. In this story you have all that could be frightening for the Victorians at the end of the 19th century. A blood line that could get lost or rather spoiled by the unknown son of one of the heirs of a title. The heir himself is dead but the son is coming strong. Then a monster animal of the dog family. The English have always liked dogs, but they seem to be afraid of some of them. A howling dog on a moor is of course quite frightening at night with a little bit of fog. Then a couple of loose women who are ready to do too much for a certain price without asking too many questions. When one of them does then she is nicely tied up clean and tight. Then some faithful servants but with divided loyalties because of a relative that is not very clean and they want to protect. That will reveal the good heart of the aristocracy. Then a few locals, vaguely seen between, two curtains and two doors that add some local color to the screen. And finally know-it-all Sherlock Holmes whose fame isn't to know the criminal but to trap him into accepting his guilt and proving it all by himself. He always succeeds so no problem there again. The only question is the punishment of that criminal. Will the police be brought into the picture or will they not? Will he hang or will he die in a more refined way. You have to go and watch the film pr just read Sir Conan Doyle.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID