This movie was so bad and campy it was hilarious. I'm not trying to insult Sherlock Holmes since he is a great literary character, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a great author, and Sherlock Holmes and the Hound of the Baskervilles is an excellent novel. However, this movie has to be seen to be believed. Even though this movie was bad it redeemed itself by being campy, and downright hilarious.
shareEspically Stapleton what a bad actor whats your name?
*deep low voice which you can barely understand
"STAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPLEEEEEEEEEEEETOOOOOOOOOON!!!"
"Who was that?"
"MY DAUGHTA!!! AVANDMA!!!"
and what a good way to kill of one of greatest villians in Sherlock History by getting raped up by the @$$ by a dog with big floopy d*ck.
I couldn't disagree more. Cushing and Morrel were the definative Holmes and Watson, much better than Rathbone and Bruce. For a truly awful version of Hound try watching the 1983 version with Ian Richardson.
shareBut STAAAAAAPLETON!!!
"Sir why don't you put the poor animal out of his misery with a gun instead of using that trap."
*Evil corny music plays*
"HGGMM!"
*Bad looking hand appears*
"I'm sorry sir I did not see your deformity."
"WEEEEGGLLLL YOUVA SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOULD VE!!!"
>For a truly awful version of Hound try watching the 1983 version with Ian >Richardson.
SACRILEDGE! Seriously though, IMHO that's the best version of the book.
Because you called this film a "movie" tends to suggest you are an American, which means your opinion is not worth anything.
You are wrong this film is in no way bad or campy. I guess what I'm trying to say is, your an idiot.
"She is yesterday's news, I'm coming round to you" http://stage.vitaminic.com/summerisle
Because you called this film a "movie" tends to suggest you are an American, which means your opinion is not worth anything.
***
Hm. I'm an American and I really liked this MOVIE.
Too bad my opinion is not worth anything ....
Good old yanks..... you rise for the bait every time. I think that is why I like you all so much :-)
Dont take yourselves so seriously..... and maybe more people would like you too.
"Just A Little Bit Further" www.summerisle.tk
I like this film could you e-mail me at [email protected]?........
shareI too am an American (or Yank, if you prefer-though I was born and lived in South Carolina, now Charlotte, NC, and hopefully soon Miami, FL, so I'm definitely not an American Yankee). Anyway, I don't agree with the original poster at all, but do with you, in that I thought it was very good, and liked it alot. I first saw this movie in June, 1992 when I rented it out from a local video store and saw it once on our VCR. I then rented it out and watched it some more in fall, 1992 and 1993, and then I did this every weekend for a time in the spring of 1994. I had heard of this movie since the early 1980s, and knew it starred Peter Cushing as Sherlock Holmes (and became very aware of him in 1982 and 1983 during frequent viewings of Star Wars). I had always wanted to watch this movie, but it never came on TV, and was not in any of the video stores to rent, but I then did see it at this chain one in 1992, and I immidiently liked it, and it got on my 100 favorite movies of all time list. I did read the original Author Conan Doyle story in spring, 1983 in my 9th grade English class (the same class I read The Most Dangerous Game in), and did like it, and remembered this movie was basically similair. But I did not think this movie was campy at all, but was very atmospheric, tense and exciting from beginning to end, and had very good direction, pacing, and effective, well placed characters. I also thought the beginning was very good and set the tone for the whole movie. I hope to see it again soon on DVD if it is out on it.
"I happen to be a vegetarian". Lex, from Jurrasic Park
<sigh> Yet another smug, self-satisfied European who's succeeding only in proving himself to be every bit as rude, arrogant and uncultured as any American.
Pretty close. I'm Russian, I lived a about 7 years in America, and now live in Canada. Oh and I'm 17 if you need some more ammo for your attacks on my character instead of on what I actually said. Since you ignored my comments about the accuracy of the movie, I can only assume you haven't even read the book.
Try to, you know, actually watch the version I recommended. This movie pales in comparison to it.
[deleted]
Dear old limey, GroovyDave1973: I know this is an old post, but I have to put my two cents (is that about what a pound is worth now) worth in.
l) I liked it better than any version of any Sherlock Holmes, which I usually don't like, but I love Peter Cushing and Hammer movies in general.
2) We Americans invented the medium, so whatever we choose to call it is correct.
3) Don't call us for help the next time your 4th rate little socialist country is about to be made a province of Germany.
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
"2) We Americans invented the medium, so whatever we choose to call it is correct."
No you didn't. I know US Americans think they invented everything (and proclaim it all of the time) but they didn't. But the first "film" or "motion picture" was actually by the English photographer Eadweard Muybridge in 1878. The first with a true motion picture camer was by a Frenchman Louis Le Prince in 1888 and the first commercial motion pictures were from Germany.
Americans always think Edison (that great plagiarist!) made the first motion picture ever, but he didn't as there had already been numerous ones before he got a crew to make one for him.
"3) Don't call us for help the next time your 4th rate little socialist country is about to be made a province of Germany."
Neither the UK nor France nor Poland called the USA for help, it only joined the war against Nazi Germany due to Japan (an Axis power) declaring war on the USA and Germany followed suit declaring war on the US in support of their ally Japan. Also, by the time the US joined the war in Europe (thus finishing it sooner) the tied had turned against Germany and the Germans were mostly fighting for better terms when they were defeated.
Also the UK isn't a "4th rate" country as it was one of the most powerful and important (for a start in terms of language, technology and law) in the world at the time. I'd rather live in a socialist country (OOoooh "Socialism" scary stuff eh? The great bogeyman for US American morons) than a capitalist tyranny where the poor can't even afford health care!
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
Pharaoh Impotent:
Muybridge lived most of his life and did all of his motion picture related work in the United States. You surely must know that, which would make use of him as example deceptive. We are a nation immigrants from European tyrany. Le Prince's camera was crude. Movies as an entertainment industry were developed in America. A camera does not a movie make. All of Edison's contributions were crucial. The sound technology was developed in the in the Unite States, including Eidson's phonograph and microphone. I recently watched Alfred Hitchcock's The Lodger (1926) and was shocked at how crude it was technically and stylistically compared to a late U. S. silent (or a German one for that matter). It reminded me of a pre-World War I American movie.
Your statements about WWII are deceptive or misinformed. France and Poland didn't call anybody for help because they had already been defeated by the Germans. If the "tied" (I assume you mean tide) had turned against Germany, it was because of massive U.S. aid to England. The turning of the tide is generally thought of as being the defeat of the Germans in North Africa. I live 25 miles from the site one of the major prison camps where members of the defeated Afrika Corps were interned. Strange the U.S. was keeping the prisoners if its army had not captured them, huh?
You mix tenses to try to prove England isn't (because it wasn't) a fourth-rate country. But we will except that it wasn't then, is now.
You're right about one thing. Socialism in all its forms -- Communist, Nazi, Fascist, and Fabian -- is scary to the people of a free country.
You will note that I have not called you or any of your courtrymen, whoever they may be, insulting names such as "moron".
I stand by all my statements.
All of this said, I like England. Like most British movies. Love reading British history, not the least because so many of your kings and queens and other leading lights were such entertainingly lurid misbehavers.
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
"All of this said, I like England. Like most British movies. Love reading British history, not the least because so many of your kings and queens and other leading lights were such entertainingly lurid misbehavers."
British and English are not the same thing. If you like England, you shoulkd say ''I like most English movies. Love reading English history''.
And the US did not invent cameras or film, end of debate. And you can hardly mock someone for making a typing error when your sentences are nothing spectacular themselves.
NAZI Germany was losing for most of WWII, it was losing the war before the USA joined, and the States didn't really save the UK from being invaded, the victory at the Battle of Britain, which almost wiped-out the Luftwaffe completely, did. Infact Monty had already won great victories in Africa against the best military leader that Germany had.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"
King Angantyr:
All right. I like movies from that strange little island where the inhabitants have strange delusions.
It took more than film and cameras to create the movie medium, a point I have already made, and you probably understand.
There is no scenario in the world of reality in which the strange islanders would have won WWII without the U. S. aiding them and the Soviet Union. But I should have learned long ago not to argue with delusional people. If you wish to live in a world of revisionist unreality, perhaps it will make you feel better about everything. There, there, now. Just keep that stiff upper lip. Dunkirk and Dieppe didn't happen.
Your sentences are not exactly great literature either.
End of debate.
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
"All right. I like movies from that strange little island where the inhabitants have strange delusions."
Because you say things like this about European countries, it is quite obvious that you are jealous of Europe, probably because your traditions only stretch back a couple hundred years, and the foundation of the USA is with people from the UK.
"There is no scenario in the world of reality in which the strange islanders would have won WWII without the U. S. aiding them and the Soviet Union."
Not really, Germany was losing the war for much of the conflict. The UK was defeating the Germans in North Africa and they defeated them at the Battle of Britain - which saved the UK, not the US intervention.
We were not saved by ''strangers barbarians from the savage continent''. I am only joking of course, the US Americans are not ''strange barbarians'', but the people of the UK are not ''strange islanders'', either, and your country was created by the people you despise.
"Your sentences are not exactly great literature either."
I am not the one hypocritically deriding others for typing errors.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"
"Not really, Germany was losing the war for much of the conflict. The UK was defeating the Germans in North Africa and they defeated them at the Battle of Britain - which saved the UK, not the US intervention."
This is beyond comprehension. Germany was certainly NOT losing the conflict in 1939, 1940 or 1941. Yes it lost the Battle of Britain, and yes, the tide had turned in North Africa, but that's about it. Germany still controlled all of mainland Europe and had just begun its invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941. The UK had absolutely zero ability to penetrate mainland Europe on its own. At best you can call it a stalemate in December 1941 when the USA entered, but in reality Germany was still viewed as 'winning' at this point in the game; it was a long, long way away from 'losing' and any other interpretation, no offense, is pure delusion.
To suggest the Allies would have been able to continue into Italy and then France without the involvement of the USA is utterly insupportable. And don't forget Japan running roughshod over the UK forces in Asia, reaching the brink of Australia. The USA's victories at Coral Sea and Midway went a long way to stopping Japan's push and then turning it around in the Pacific.
I am not a flag-waving moron who thinks my country is superior to everyone in everything, but at the same time, ridiculous statements like these cannot be left uncorrected. Give credit where credit is due.
"Muybridge lived most of his life and did all of his motion picture related work in the United States. You surely must know that, which would make use of him as example deceptive."
I know he worked in America, though he was born and died in England.
"We are a nation immigrants from European tyrany."
Indeed. Europeans who left "European tyranny" and found American tyranny and prejudice.
"Le Prince's camera was crude."
Of course it was, being that it was the first. I'd hardly expect Le Prince's camera to be digital and "high tech". His first camera was a "crude" double-lensed piece. His second was single lensed and no more crude than the one Edison had made (by an Anglo-Scot born in France, but in this case an American citizen). This second camera was from 1889 but Le Prince was did not gain the US patent.
"Movies as an entertainment industry were developed in America."
Wrong! That happened in Germany before America.
"A camera does not a movie make. All of Edison's contributions were crucial. The sound technology was developed in the in the Unite States, including Eidson's phonograph and microphone."
No one is denying the US had any part to play in the development of the cinema, but they didn't "invent" it as you claim.
"I recently watched Alfred Hitchcock's The Lodger (1926) and was shocked at how crude it was technically and stylistically compared to a late U. S. silent (or a German one for that matter). It reminded me of a pre-World War I American movie."
So? Hitchcock wasn't event the greatest UK director as you Americans seem to believe, and I am not a great fan. Secondly, the UK film industry was poorer than the US one. Thirdly, German and French films put US films to shame in that era anyway. They were hardly the world leader in an artistic sense. Thought there were a lot of enjoyable American films from the late silent era.
"You mix tenses to try to prove England isn't (because it wasn't) a fourth-rate country. But we will except that it wasn't then, is now."
That is a laugh. The UK in general (not just England) has a lot of problems but at least it doesn't have a school shooting every other week, all you weirdo fundies, worthless health-care, a strange and, dare I say, backwards "race-war", an irrational fear of foreigners (or "forns" as you call them) and especially Cuba (though they did defeat your incompetent invasion so maybe that is justified) and "socialised medicine" (Oh dear, health-care for the poor!). and at least the UK, while unpopular isn't nearly as much by the US. Though you may claim it is because of jealousy that you are hated it really isn't, you are hated because you try to bully other countries while aping Europe at every turn as you feel inferior to European countries due to the newness of your country. You are also jealous of Mexico because it at least has a claim to the culture of the Aztecs and Mayans whereas the oldest US-Americans were zealots and penal colonists!
"Your statements about WWII are deceptive or misinformed. France and Poland didn't call anybody for help because they had already been defeated by the Germans."
They still had governments in exile! And the war had already started before France was invaded. But then, history is obviously not your strong point.
"If the "tied" (I assume you mean tide)"
You know I do. That is called a typo. Even most morons would realise that typos do occasionally happen. You should look at your own posts before commenting. Incidently it is Edison not "eidson" and tyranny not "tyrany" as you wrote in yur post.
"had turned against Germany, it was because of massive U.S. aid to England."
Which the UK paid for. This wasn't charity. Also it had more to do with superiority in the air than anything. And that was more about the tactics though supplies from the US were valuable of course.
"The turning of the tide is generally thought of as being the defeat of the Germans in North Africa. I live 25 miles from the site one of the major prison camps where members of the defeated Afrika Corps were interned. Strange the U.S. was keeping the prisoners if its army had not captured them, huh?"
The US were in the last stages of the Africa campaign, but were a small expeditionary force. A token force actually. The US didn'[t even take part in the majority of the major battles such as Alam el Halfa or the second Battle of El Alamein (the decisive victory of the campaign) or even the capture of Tobruk. The majority of combatants where from the UK, France (the "Free French"), the Commonwealth (especially Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa) and Greece. The US were mostly used during Operation Torch (against Vichy France held territories in North Africa) and were still only a small proportion even in that operation which was overwhelmingly made up of UK forces, which was a forgone conclusion after the complete and utter defeat of the Germans, under Rommel, in Libya and Egypt.
"You're right about one thing. Socialism in all its forms -- Communist, Nazi, Fascist, and Fabian -- is scary to the people of a free country."
A yes, a "free country". The USA is such a free country that it had slaves longer than most countries in the world. A country that is so free that ethnic minorities still suffer discrimination and hatred and in which the rich business control everything from the media to the white house. I am glad I live in an "unfree" country if the USA is an example of a "free" one!
Just admit that the US is just scared because one day the fat-cats will be overthrown and the people will free themselves from Uncle Sam's idea of "freedom". The whole world knows this anyway.
"You will note that I have not called you or any of your countrymen, whoever they may be, insulting names such as "moron"."
No, you just insulted them by saying they live in a fourth-rate country and that you (to use the usual crass US "good ol' boy" way of speaking) the USA "saved your asses!". The usual nonsense you all spout due to your inferiority complex towards the countries that made you whole culture come about (and some would say shamefully so).
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
That's a brilliant retort. And Oh my! Every average American I've communicated with has been arrogant and ignorant! I'm not even exaggerating.
shareAnyone who can't spell "you're" is automatically disqualified in the judging of idiocy category.
shareIf he's an idiot, then what does that make you? You can't even spell a contraction properly, and I believe you left out a semicolon when you said:
"You are wrong this film is in no way bad or campy. I guess what I'm trying to say is, your an idiot."
When I saw this movie, I expected a faithful interpretation of the excellent Hound of the Baskervilles. How surprised I was! First off, Stapleton has a daughter and she was in on the whole thing?! Webbed hands? The dog turning on Stapleton while his daughter died like he did in the book?! Where in the book did they explore the mine? Why suspect Dr. Mortimer?
This "interpretation" just made me mad. I can't see how anyone who likes the book can like this movie.
Then again, maybe I'm like this because I was "spoiled" by the Russian movie version of the story. It follows the book almost to the letter. I highly recommend viewing it, if you can somehow get past the language barrier.
[deleted]
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I have to say: Please OP, learn to watch films seriously :)
Science Fiction Horror
I for one rather enjoyed this film. I know it isn't the greatest adaption of the novel, but it certainly is not the worst. It was just a fun entertaining hammer film.
shareThis film is anything but serious though.
shareSpeaking of bad and/or campy, check out films like "The Brain That Wouldn't Die." "Hound" looks like a cinematic masterpiece compared to that.
shareNot bad - 7.5
"She let me go."
~White Oleander