BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Micitype Pretty Good

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

DPMay When an actor is so inextricably associated with the role of Sherlock Holmes, as Basil Rathbone most surely is, it comes as something of a surprise to see him take only second billing in this, his first outing as Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle's master detective. That Richard Greene, in the role of Sir Henry Baskerville, is considered the star is indicative that either Rathbone wasn't yet considered a bankable enough name or, perhaps more likely, 20th Century Fox were very much looking at this project as a one-off rather than the first in a potential series.'Hound' may well be the best known Sherlock Holmes story, but in having the Baker Street sleuth absent for a considerable chunk of the narrative it is perhaps not the character's best outing so in that sense perhaps it is only right that Rathbone takes second place. Make no mistake, however, it is he who steals the show.There are many other screen versions of this famous story, however it is very difficult to find a better one than this. From start to finish it maintains a steady pace, and absorbs the viewer with not only an intriguing mystery but also a pervading atmosphere of foreboding menace. There are so many great cast members in this piece, such as Nigel De Brullier, John Carradine, Eily Malyon and especially Lionel Atwill as Dr Mortimer, whose mere faces are compelling to watch when photographed and lit so effectively.It cannot be easy to recreate Dartmoor within the confines of a soundstage and yet the sets and model work are utterly convincing, not to mention gloriously atmospheric. Even when it comes to one of the most difficult aspects of the story to achieve on screen, the hound itself, this film succeeds and the beast comes across as wholly real and savage, unleashing what appears to be a truly devastating attack on its victim without any sign of a close-up showing a fake paw being dragged across an actor's face.In transferring the novel to screen, some minor tinkering has been made to the story in order to keep it tight and make it more suitable for this medium. Characters such as Dr Mortimer and Barryman (Barrymore in the novel) are given a greater air of menace. The character of Laura Lyons is removed altogether whilst others are added such as the neighbour Frankland, a morose man who speaks his mind. Certain scenes are new additions, such as a séance and a glimpse of the inquest into Sir Charles Baskerville's death. The dog is not covered with phosphorescence. The most crucial change, perhaps, is that Beryl Stapleton really is John Stapleton's sister in this version and that she is oblivious as to the plot against Sir Henry. All of which is very well, but it does then leave open the question of who sent the anonymous warning letter to him at the outset.Rathbone and Bruce nail their roles of Holmes and Watson immediately and already show a great chemistry in their scenes together. There has been much debate over the years about Nigel Bruce portraying Watson as a buffoon but there is little evidence of it here, other than lapses which are present in the original novel. On the whole Watson is brave, courteous and intelligent. A mention also for Mary Gordon, making her debut as Holmes' housekeeper Mrs Hudson, a role she would retain when the series switched to the Universal film studios.There are a few minor faults, such as not quite seeing the villain of the piece get his final comeuppance (it happens off screen) but overall this remains a wonderfully watchable film version of a famous Sherlock Holmes adventure and a masterful demonstration into achieving subtle menace on the screen at almost every turn.

bigverybadtom Everything went right with this version of the famous Sherlock Holmes story. The stars as well as the other performers fit their roles perfectly, the atmosphere was convincing, the story was well-paced, and there was humor, but not overdone. The mystery in the story was not too difficult to figure out, but there were still some unexpected twists.The story itself: the wealthy lord of a country estate dies, evidently of heart failure, some sort of wild man finds him but is scared off, and the man's nephew comes from Canada to claim the title and property. Trouble is, there is the story of how heirs to the estate have all died violently, so as a safety measure, Sherlock Holmes and Watson are brought in by an old friend of the family.The movie isn't perfect; the romance subplot seems rather contrived and there are characters who have nothing to do with the actual storyline. But overall the movie is both scary and entertaining.

Paul Evans Made way back in 1939, since then many incarnations of the great detective have taken on the famous hound and won. I can't say I find this the quintessential version, but it does have many favourable qualities, the actual hound itself brings true fear, the scenes involving it with Sir Henry are incredibly realistic, and even now look very effective. There is a great sense of atmosphere, the moors look decidedly spooky. The performances all round are very good from the supporting cast, Lionel Atwill and Richard Greene I thought were particularly good in their respective roles. Rathbone's 'goods pedlar' is a treat to behold, the master of disguise at work! The fashions look great too, they managed to capture the Victorian era beautifully.I understand that for a few plot changes are unforgivable, but I can understand why, and on occasion changes can help, for pacing, timescale etc. Rathbone and Bruce combined wonderfully well in this earlier outing, they seemingly had an easy working relationship, it all looks so easy. The Universal movies would became bolder and more dramatic, with greater fiddling to the plot lines.A quality suspense mystery 8/10

A_Different_Drummer Rathbone was already a star when this was filmed (and indeed did other notable roles such as the bad guy in Mark of Zorro, 1940, also in my reviews) but this was history in the making. As Holmes, he was not just good, he was perfect. The studio was not sure about the effort but the box office was so good that 13 more followed. Rathbone may (OMG) have been the best Holmes of all, physically imposing, naturally intellectual, confidence inspiring, trustworthy, and he made every pronouncement sound like the discovery of the century, whether it was or not. Nigel Bruce pretty much set the template for the affable, foolish, but good-natured Watson. Set it so well in fact that 3/4 of a century later, writers would be jumping through hoops to re-imagine Watson just to show they could -- look at the fun Moffat is having with his ex-soldier, newly married Watson; and the writers in Elementary actually get to use an ex-Charlies Angel (!) to prove how far away from Nigel Bruce they can get. Look, let's be clear -- we live in era when, if a studio can get to 5 or 6 sequels without imploding, they are entering Oscar territory. That this franchise did 13 should make the point crystal clear. Iconic, and sets the bar. Brilliant.