The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978) User Reviews

Moore and Peter Cook Up a Big DUD!

[BaronBl00d · 3/10 · 8 November 2008]

Painful. Wincing. Shameful. 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. This film starts off badly and then bottoms out within the first ten minutes. 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. Unfortunately watching Hugh Griffith, Prunella Scales, Terry-Thomas, and oh so ever did I feel sorry for someone Joan Greenwood embarrass themselves with witless, nonsensical, unfunny material did little to improve matters at all. 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. The jokes are stale for the most part - missing hugely. There is a terrible Exorcist sequence that made me just want to fast-forward the rest of the film. but like a trooper I sat through till the end and was relieved when it finally finished. The story has the basic structure of the Doyle novel intact with some obvious changes meant to be funny. And some of the changes would have been funny maybe if a little more had been done with the material. I am not saying there is nothing funny in the film. There are a few bright spots. Dudley Moore with a chihuahua and Denholm Elliot was a decent comedic scene until it just went on and on. And I also liked the sequence with Cook and Moore as a one-legged man trying for a position as a runner on the moors for Holmes. That was, for me at least, easily the funniest scene in the entire film. The rest is a mismatch of things that just didn't work for me at all. Maybe a bit more respect for the material would have rendered this more amusing. 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. The script though is woefully lacking even for a farce like this. Director Paul Morrissey show little talent here and it is a real pity when you have such huge talents to work with. Penelope Keith is wonderful in a brief cameo as a bordello hostess(sultry too). Spike Milligan has a fine brief cameo as a policeman. Terry-Thomas is Terry-Thomas in a final bow as that which he basically made his career playing, a cad. This was his last meaningful screen role - a pity for Thomas fans but at least you get an older vintage Thomas nevertheless. More than anything else I was just surprised at the low level of intellect, given a title like The Hound of the Baskervilles, required, nay, even expected, to enjoy this moronic, sophomoric tripe. A real pity as I said.

A 'comic' retelling of a classic story

[Tweekums · 5/10 · 24 November 2019]

This story sees Holmes being approached by Dr Mortimer to investigate the death of the owner of Baskerville Hall. While the death is officially natural causes it is suspected that the real cause may be a beast known as the Hound of the Baskervilles. Holmes declines the case but passes it on to Dr Watson; it is to be his first solo case. Watson, Mortimer and Sir Henry Baskerville, the dead man's heir, head to the hall on a bleak moor. Once there Watson and Sir Henry meet the locals, all of whom are more than a little strange and rather suspicious. Inevitably Watson eventually has to call Holmes for help.

Given the array of comic talent on display one might expect this to be a comedy classic... unfortunately it isn't. There are a few funny moments but elsewhere gags aren't particularly funny or go on far too long. The script feels like something rejected by the Carry On team, even they never sank to having gags about urinating Chihuahuas. The cast was solid enough given the material, although I'm not sure why Dudley Moore played Watson with a Welsh accent. All of them have been in better films. Overall I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to see this; it is just about worth watching on TV if there is nothing else of interest on or if the DVD is in the bargain bin at a charity shop.

A dog of a film

[cheesehoven · 3/10 · 18 October 2004]

Following the rudimentary outline of Conan Doyle's famous Sherlock Holmes tale, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore concoct a feast of comical whimsy. Or so they would have sold this weak film to its producers. As it is, it is a threadbare piece of work all too briefly lightened with flashes of genius(I laughed out loud when Dud encounters his double in the post office). We have bits of Pete'n'Dud's earlier stage material (ie 'i've nothing against your right leg, and neither have you') which were much funnier (because they were much fresher) in their original versions. Newer material seemed thin and drawn out. The accents that Cook and Moore avail themselves of (Jewish and Welsh) are funny to begin with, but soon pall. Likewise, the piddling dog is hilarious but dragged on for so long that the viewer starts to become annoyed and forget that he ever found it amusing. The music is a major drag. Dudley is an accomplished pianist, but his soundtrack in the manner of an old silent film accompanist falls as flat as the rest of the film.

Worse Than Its Reputation

[Michael_Elliott · 2 March 2010]

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. Sometimes these bad movies turn out to be entertaining but sometimes they turn out to be so bad that I often wonder why no one was seeing how bad the dailies were and didn't try to pull the plug. That's what I felt here. This story has been told countless times and since it's the most popular perhaps that's why everyone involved decided to shoot it. 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. That's the only thing I can think of that would make any of them feel as if they had anything working in this screenplay. The movie gets off to a horrendous start and it doesn't improve any and in the end I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder why no one put a bullet in this sucker before it could hit theaters. The deadliest sin a comedy can make is that it's not funny and this movie makes the unforgivable sin of not having a single laugh. For the most part we have various characters acting gay and this appears to be the only joke going. Everyone acts extremely strange and that includes Holmes who we first see as some sort of sissy and I guess the screenwriters through this would be hilarious. The rest of the jokes are just downright flat and it almost seems like no effort was made to make any of them funny. For the life of me I couldn't understand how anyone could find this mess entertaining and most of the blame is right on the screenplay. As far as the performances go they're just as bad as the writing. The film ends with many bizarre jokes including an extremely bad spoof of THE EXORCIST that comes out of no where and seems out of place. I tried to think of at least one nice thing to say about this film but couldn't think of one as even the titles are boring and the music (by Moore) is pathetic. A complete disaster this one is and I'm sure you can safely call this the worst Holmes movie in history.

A deeply horrendous film

[HenryHextonEsq · 1/10 · 9 September 2001]

I have scarcely, if *ever*, been so disappointed with a film as I was with this. My expectations were hardly particularly high going into the viewing... I certainly did expect more from a film involving Peter Cook, based around the enjoyable Holmesian mythos.

To begin with, the direction was appallingly unsuitable. 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. Morrissey merely 'directs' an astonishingly experienced and talented cast to go horribly - and I mean horribly - Over The Top, shout a lot, and mixes this with pointless, inapposite crudity. 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. Is Kenneth Williams another to be added to this unfortunate role-call of British comedy greats forcibly desecrated...? Well yes, his performance is every bit the unsubtle, irritating stereotype that many expect of him, including it seems, Paul Morrissey. 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. Cook is an aloof, stony-but-insubstantial presence as an 'actor' in this 'picture', Morrissey allowing him no scope for his usual absurdism, shoehorning him into a cardboard nonentity of a role - though surely he himself is culpable, if scripting? Moore is worse, faring poorly as an inept, 'Welsh' Holmes; never once amusing.

This truly is a dire, unspeakable film. The production side of matters is, if anything, as shabby as the rest of the picture; a slipshod shoddiness makes the visuals outright repellent. Strikingly, there is no attempt to truly parody or spoof the Sherlock Holmes mythos; it makes even mediocre films like "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes's Smarter Brother" (1975) or "The Seven Per Cent Solution" (1976) seem like satiric masterworks in comparison. All this ends up doing is lamentably degrading the Holmes mythos it claims association with.

I hated this film intensely - as I am sure you gathered - and can say with the utmost confidence that it symbolises the utter fall from grace of a tradition of British (film) comedy.

"In the name of all the flocking blind cripples, I beseech you"

[bensonmum2 · 2/10 · 17 November 2008]

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. My reaction, well if you've been on IMDb for any length of time, you've probably seen the well thought out response "It Sux" when someone is asked about their opinion on a given film. Well, "It Sux" pretty well sums up my feelings to the abomination that is The Hound of the Baskervilles. It is a complete waste of time and effort. I can't imagine how two talented individuals like Cook and Moore could have concocted such a disaster of a film. It's nothing short of a chore to sit through the thing. It's the complete opposite of funny. 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 actually started to feel embarrassed for these talented actors. What were they thinking? And where in the world did the scenes taken from The Exorcist come from? I don't remember any pea soup spitting in Doyle's original work.

I actually bought The Hound of the Baskervilles on DVD. I'm glad it only set me back $3, because the 2/10 I've rated the movie may actually be overstating things a bit.

Astonishingly Bad

[phibes012000 · 1/10 · 7 January 2010]

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 many comedic celebrities, and not once is anyone remotely funny. For instance there is a gag involving a perpetually urinating dog that seems to go on for years. The mentality of the whole project seems to be that merely having a British accent makes things funny. The film stars Dudley Moore and Peter Cook, but its all rubbish. Spike Milligan and Terry Thomas are also wasted. Sure to give ya a big ole ulcer. Avoid this stinker at all costs.

Dogs dinner

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 23 April 2018]

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. That was not to be.

Thought 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' an abomination when first seeing it. Was hoping it would be better than remembered on re-watch, that's happened with some re-watches though a majority are about the same. As much as it pains me to say it, it's still an abomination. Not just as an adaptation of the story, done in a comedic way and with only the title, the basic structure and characters names intact, on that front by far the worst version (yes worse than Matt Frewer's and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would not be proud if he saw this). 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 music score is really out of place in style and placement, like it was written for something else entirely. The direction is barely competent and shows a director clearly ill at ease with the material and not knowing how to direct it.

Worst of all is that 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' has no atmosphere whatsoever for such a suspenseful story and is never once funny. 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. The humour is an all over the map mix of tastelessness, repetition, pointlessness and dragged out.

In conclusion, a disastrous dogs dinner. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I incorrectly assumed that a comedy was supposed to be funny...

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 31 May 2012]

"The Hound of Baskervilles" is apparently a comedy. However, unlike a normal comedy, there are no laughs to be had...not even one. 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. And, for those folks who are NOT fans--the film won't satisfy either.

The problems with the film are many. First, the script is terrible and as I said already, there are no laughs. The humor is very, very broad and there never seem to be any punchlines. Second, the stars, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, are dreadful. In particular, Dudley Moore plays Dr. Watson as if he's brain damaged--and there's no subtlety whatsoever in his performance. I am not exaggerating when I say he plays the part as if he's a high school student in a comedy play about Sherlock Holmes. The film drones on and on and on and eventually, I was so bored and turned off by the film that I turned it off--something I very, very rarely do. I found it to be a painful and miserable experience watching the film. I would have enjoyed a nice comedy about Holmes....this one sure isn't it.

Dudley on the Moors.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 16 April 2021]

I cannot stress enough how insane this film is. It's as if there was a competition between the members of the cast (too many familiar faces to mention) to see who could get away with the most eccentric performance. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of Terry Thomas and Kenneth Williams, is doing their level best to be completely and utterly crazy, which results in a totally barmy movie that I found strangely compelling. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more madcap, Dudley Moore goes and sings a song that is the epitome of lunacy.

Moore plays several roles, but his primary character is that of the Welsh Dr. Watson, whom Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cook) sends to the Baskerville estate to investigate the story of a killer supernatural hound that haunts the moors. The film approximates the plot of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book, but with Moore and Cook on script-writing duties, it was guaranteed to stray into strange and unusual territory. Not all of their nuttiness hits the mark, but the bits that do are so hilarious that it's worth putting up with the odd duff scene (the painfully bad The Exorcist parody, I'm looking at you!).

The film's funniest moments include Max Wall's weather proverb ("Fog on the moors, clear skies indoors. Fog in the house, sun's out for field mouse"), a variation on Moore and Cook's one-legged Tarzan routine, the very silly codes suggested for Dr. Watson's telegram (Sausage), and Mr. Stapleton's perpetually incontinent Chihuahua that pees in Watson's face.

6.5/10, rounded up to 7 for Penelope Keith as a 'masseuse', showing us the sexier side of Margo Ledbetter that only Jerry was privy to.

What a dog

[jglillis-1 · 1/10 · 19 June 2008]

I bought this on CD. Big mistake. I should have looked it up on IMDb first. I figured I'd add to my "Holmes" collection. This has nothing to do with Holmes. It has nothing to do with "British humor" either - I think some of Cleese is hilarious and I own everything Sellers has ever done. This is just a pure-and-simple complete waste of time. It's not funny. Whoever was in charge of casting must have been throwing darts at a board loaded with the photos of wannabe comedians. My God! Who is that thing cast as Sir Henry Baskerville? It's not well-acted. The plot is ridiculous. The dialogue is childish and in many cases reeks of non-sequitur. And Sherlock Holmes's MOTHER?!?!?!? Puh-leeze. I've walked out of three movies in my life - the musical version of Lost Horizon, Paint Your Wagon (a MUSICAL starring Lee Marvin, believe it or not), and this thing.

Its camp & stupid, i love to strike a happy medium.....

[lee_symonds · 9/10 · 1 September 2005]

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!!

Vintage Dudley

[Dock-Ock · 6/10 · 24 July 2003]

The Hound of the Baskervilles is never realises its comedy potential as a vehicle for Dudley Moore and Peter Cook. However, it is an hillarious little piece in the Carry On mode, and that is its blessing and its curse. When its bad its awful, but it still has the ability to milk one or two belly laughs. Fans of Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle will probably love it because it both sends up Doyles Holmes and Watson and is an affectionate tribute to their worlds. Were the movie falls flat is that the too many ideas are rather lacklusterly handled by Andy Warhol veteren Paul Morrissey. 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. What is fairly noticeable about this film is the growing talent and enthusiasm of Dudley Moore as a screen prescence. He has at this point broke free the comedy chains enforced by Peter Cooks talent and his confidence dances off the screen. His silent movie/Chaplin/Laurel and Hardy/Keaton tribute usical score is wondeful too. He is genuinely hillarious with his over the top welsh accent as Watson and cripplingly funny playing Holmes's mother. In all honesty it is Dudley who makes the film work. 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.

Wow that's bad

[cherold · 2/10 · 18 September 2010]

Normally I don't rate movies that I've only watched 15 minutes of, but I'm going to make an exception for this one, because it begins so remarkably badly that it is almost unimaginable that it could redeem itself. 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 beginning feels very much like a bad burlesque sketch. 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 just utterly perplexed that this movie was made, and feel everyone involved should hang their heads in shame.

The Hound must have worms

[tomfarrellmedia · 26 October 2004]

British humour has such a rich hierarchy of anarchists, loonies, clowns and mad geniuses that it would be very hard to establish any kind of 'A Division.' But undoubtedly Peter Cook and Dudley would be in there. 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. In the event the movie was neither, simply a burst whoopie cushion where every gag falls flat and a strong cast is completely wasted. Tragically Terry Thomas made his last movie appearance in this stink bomb, while Spike Milligan was only given three minutes. Max Wall, Roy Kinnear and Prunella Scales were hardly allowed rescue the movie while Kenneth Williams was inadvisedly slotted in as Henry Baskerville. Prancing around with his 'startled moose' expression and flared nostrils, this movie buries the myth that he was a great comic actor who was trapped by the mundane Carry On scripts. 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. Although Cook had problems with drink and depression by the late 1970s, the duo was also producing the much-praised punk humour of Derek and Clive at the same time. That said, it probably was a factor in their 'divorce' and Moore's flight to New York, Lisa Minelli and 'Arthur.' The look of the movie is cheap and shabby and at least a decade out of date. Moore was a fine pianist but his score is out of place in a comedy. It is wholly appropriate that the final credits end with the unseen audience pelting him with rotten fruit

the last scene defines the movie quite well

[niplips · 1/10 · 7 December 2020]

The last scene of this piece of dreck, shows an audience booing and throwing vegetables at a pianist, Dudley Moore, which is very appropriate considering he's the person responsible for the garbage presented as entertainment. I have no problem with spoofs - I rather enjoy them if they're well done - but even The Asylum would be ashamed to turn out something this bad and so devoid of substance.

This movie is dreadful almost to the point of seeming deliberately so

[squeezebox · 1/10 · 10 October 2012]

There are very few movies I've seen that I found so monumentally awful that I felt compelled to watch them again because I was convinced they could not have really been as bad as I thought. I have not yet re-watched Paul Morrissey's Hound of the Baskervilles, but I intend to. 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. It is beyond terrible. Other than a few chuckles and maybe one actual laugh the movie is brutally unfunny. 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. The rest of the cast, made up mostly of familiar faces that populated classic British cinema in the 60s and 70s, appear utterly confused, as if they walked on the set and Morrissey just turned on the camera and said "action."

It appears Morrissey is trying to recapture the gleeful irreverence of his Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula but forgot how he managed to accomplish it. The outrageous gore, bizarre characters and non-sequitur dialog juxtaposed against such lush and pastoral settings made for a pair of genuinely idiosyncratic films (which were shot back-to-back).

That same magic never materializes in Hound of the Baskervilles. It is an utterly lifeless movie. The actors' performances are akin to witnessing the death throes of a drowning animal desperately trying to stay afloat. That mixed with the mind-numbingly awful screenplay and leaden direction results in an intensely unpleasant and uncomfortable experience.

Considering Morrissey's roots with Andy Warhol's Factory, one wonders if that were not his intention all along.

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (Paul Morrissey, 1978) BOMB

[Bunuel1976 · 1/10 · 28 December 2008]

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! Spoofing Sherlock Holmes was hardly a novel idea in the late 1970s – George C. Scott, Gene Wilder and, to some extent, Nicol Williamson have already tried that (albeit with little success) – so it's even harder to fathom now what possessed the film-makers here to have another go at that concept. 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"). Morrissey might have seemed like a good choice for director after having given relatively the same irreverent treatment to both Frankenstein and Dracula under the aegis of his enigmatic boss back home but, as a big fan of the horror genre, even I hesitated for the longest time before catching those two and wasn't won over by them when I eventually did! 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! Well, at least, they were prescient enough to anticipate the right reaction…

As if that wasn't bad enough, Williams 'in character' is totally miscast for the role of Sir Henry and, even if he manages to waive through it with utmost dignity, Terry-Thomas is wasted when playing straight as he does here. Still, the pits are reached with the belated appearance of Elliott and Greenwood: Dr. Watson is repeatedly bathed in cat pee during his interrogation of the former and, later, unknowingly eats from a plate in which the same cat had just done its daily duties. Greenwood, then, was granted the dubious honor of being perhaps the first actress to spoof Linda Blair's demonic child in THE EXORCIST as she invites Moore to her levitating bed and tickles him with her long, wiggling tongue and, later, doing an array of 360-degree head-spins while sitting at table and, inevitably, showering her guests with the proverbial pea-soup vomit!! Frankly, these sequences were so outrageous and unexpected that I couldn't help but burst out in spasms of laughter but, the more I think of them now, the less amusing they seem to be.

Apparently, the film is available on a Special Edition DVD which presents the film in a widescreen print of the original 85-minute British theatrical release version and a full-frame edition of the shorter U.S. cut that was trimmed by 11 minutes and, reportedly, made even less sense than before. While I did managed to acquire just the former, my copy was ever so slightly off in terms of lip-synching on my cheap DVD player model so I elected to watch it on my PC monitor which, while solving this problem, severely window box the image!! 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!

Tragic waste of British comedic talent!

[deacon_blues-88632 · 2/10 · 19 March 2021]

Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Spike Milligan, Hugh Griffiths, Terry-Thomas, etc! All to no avail! Terrible writing. All the jokes fall absolutely flat! Many are in very poor taste to boot! "flocking blind cripples"? Flashing? Way too little clothing on very repulsive bodies? Just awful!

Strong candidate for worst Sherlock Holmes film ever

[gridoon2024 · 3/10 · 29 January 2023]

Handsomely mounted (the interior decoration is especially impressive) but appallingly unfunny; films like "Murder By Death" or even "Naked Gun" got the right idea: if you want to spoof a genre, you have to embrace it first. "Hound Of The Baskervilles" has very little to do with the detective genre; it mostly just borrows some names and words from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's eponymous story and substitutes bad accents, crossdressing and overacting for actual comedy. Dudley Moore's incessant piano music is (deliberately?) annoying. Dana Gillespie is literally the only bright spot (or should I say "spots"....) of the movie. * out of 4.

I liked it

[ajcemrush · 7/10 · 11 May 2006]

Geeze, that last post was a bit harsh. I found this movie funny when I first saw it soon after release, and when I recently watched it with my three young daughters. I thought the pee pee scene was hilarious, and I enjoyed the homages to Moore's and Cook's other works. It's just fun. It's SUPPOSED to be just fun; not deep, not a cinema-graphic classic, but fun. If my kids can enjoy it now, 25+ years later, It can't be that bad,and it isn't. Find it, watch it with a drink or two in your gullet, and enjoy! Not everything has to be a great work of art, you know. We all need to stop being so pretentious with these critiques. You can enjoy Spartacus AND Evil Dead, The Maltese Falcon AND Ice Pirates, You can enjoy this movie too.

Why?

[arfdawg-1 · 1/10 · 30 March 2024]

Why these two great comedians and Terry Thomas agreed to be in a movie directed by untalented Andy Warhol protege Paul Morrissey is confounding. Maybe because they got to write the script?

The comedy is sort of Monty Python-ish, just no where near as funny as anything they did.

And Dudley Moore uses some sort of weird accent that's annoying.

The movie is presented like a TV movie, so I wonder if it ever went to the theatres. It's got the look and feel of a TV bit elongated into under 90 minutes.

Actually, that's the thing. The entire movie is like a Monty Python skit, so it's not funny on the movie screen and it doesnt translate well to the TV.

Better Than People Say

[dogma-53668 · 8/10 · 7 May 2022]

Has a great supporting cast. It is a parody. And I have seen the worse, especialyl lately. Don't take any of it seriously, just sit back and watch the nonsense. There are some very funny gags if you'll just stick with it. And the pairing between the two leads as a comedy team really does work. Watch it without guilt. Maybe some people don't understand British humor. I still find it hilarious. And I'm a Holmes and Conan Doyle fan.

Amusing, if not overly consistent, parody of the Holmes canon

[cellorey · 7/10 · 29 August 2000]

I viewed this film recently after a long battle trying to obtain a copy on video. All in all, it was worth the effort. Peter Cook is hilarious as Sherlock Holmes, not the typical portrayal of the super sleuth that we know and love. At the onset, Cook is wearing women's clothes while conversing with a potential client (but only because Watson wasn't supposed to admit any clients)! 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. For fans of gross-out British humor and Monty Python fans, this film provides many laughs; others steer clear. My edict: 7 out of 10.

A barking dog that isn't even cute.

[mark.waltz · 2/10 · 3 January 2022]

A huge disaster for Peter Cook and Dudley Moore as Holmes and Watson in a really bad spoof of the classic Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mystery. It's real foul play for Moore in his comeback year that is loud and obnoxious and completely badly acted by everybody include of some of Britain's greatest comments. Cook and Moore seem to think that they are hysterical, but their overplaying is completely inappropriate and from the beginning makes this a nightmare has tried to get through, more of a nightmare than the attacking hounds committing these vicious murders.

Told in sort of a silent movie themed way with chapter breaks, the script just never shuts up and calms down, and every single character has a level of obnoxiousness that is annoying beyond forgiveness. Such legendary talents as Terri Thomas, Joan Greenwood, Kenneth Williams and Jessie Matthews are greatly abused in a way that makes you wonder why they did not walk off the set. Moore is embarrassingly bad when he puts on drag to become Holmes' mother, and I wonder if he ever begged his friends not to ever watch this.

While this does try to capture the period, that's not good enough to make it worth watching. The direction is all over the place and the plot really makes no sense. There are a lot of scenes that could have been cut out, having no real point in regards to the plot what little there is. In fact, just really doesn't deal with the Baskervilles all that much. I give it a number two as a rating simply because that is truly how it smells, and giving it a one would only indicate that there was something amusing and how bad it was. Absolutely nothing amusing about this in any way. Without a doubt the worst Sherlock Holmes movie ever made.