IMDb > The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 10:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]
Index 92 reviews in total 

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

" To find an answer, we ask questions, to find the truth, we continue . . . "

Author: thinker1691 from USA
25 December 2009

There are many renditions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous detective in films. I suspect Peter Cushing's version is extremely good and very convincing. But for me the very best version is the original and for that you must see the 1939 offering. The movie has the same title as the book and called " The Hound of The Baskervilles. " In the legendary story, we have our hero Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) being requested by Dr. Mortimer, a friend of Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene) if he would investigate the strange death of Sir Charles, who was viciously mutilated by an enormous killer hound. With his trusted friend Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) the great detective sets out to learn if the hound from hell really exists and why Sir Henry is in danger. With John Carradine, Wendy Barrie and Lionel Atwill in the cast, this superb original is the very first of many sequels. Each has the foggy, mysterious atmosphere which made the address on Baker Street synonymous with the world's greatest detective. This is an striking example, when asked about Basil Rathbone's superior legacy who is better remembered for villains than good guys. Excellent Classic film ! ****

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: TheFiendsThatPlagueThee from United States
2 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When his uncle dies, Sir Henry Baskerville returns to England from Canada to take up his title and estates. The only problem is that there is a curse on the family dating back hundreds of years in the form of a giant hound that will kill the current head of the family. When others around him are killed on the moors and attempts are made on his life, Sir Henry turns to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to solve the mystery.

Basil Rathbone is the perfect Sherlock Holmes. Physically and in temperament, I cannot imagine any other actor doing as good a job in this role as he does. This may not be news to many, but as this is the first of his films that I have seen, I was pleasantly surprised. And I was almost as pleased with the performance of Nigel Bruce as Watson. The rest of the supporting cast also performed admirably in their roles.

The story moved along at a fast pace, and managed to maintain a decent atmosphere of suspense despite the identity of the murderer being given away early kn the film (if the viewer is paying attention). The settings on the moors are wonderfully bleak and dreary and certainly helped contribute to the effectiveness of the film.

Overall, I enjoyed this one a lot and highly recommend it.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Heir of the Dog.

Author: Robert J. Maxwell ( from Deming, New Mexico, USA
12 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For Holmesians, I've given this an eight. For everyone else it's a seven. It's the best known of Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, or at least it's the one that's shown up most often on the screen. It's reasonably faithful to the novella; it has good production values; and it represents the first appearance of Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Doctor Watson.

Ernest Pascal adapted the story to the screen and did a reasonably good job. He swept a couple of incidents and characters under the rug, true, and he turned some obviously harmless people of the story, such as Dr. Mortimer, into sometimes sinister characters to act as red herrings. Presumably the rearrangement was done to get rid of secondary characters such as Miss Linney or whatever her name was in order to save time. (At 80 minutes, it's a rather short main feature.) But then why stick in a scene with a séance that goes nowhere and adds nothing? The writer must have hoped it would quicken the tempo of the film. That was Pascal's wager, but I'm not sure it was a such a brilliant move. Changed, too, is the relationship between Stapleton (Morton Lowery) and Beryl (Wendy Barrie). In the film, she's Stapleton's unwitting step-sister. In the novel she's Stapelton's reluctant but knowing accomplice. She's the one who writes Sir Henry a warning note when he arrives in London to claim his estate. Making her an innocent leaves unanswered the question of who, then, wrote the warning note. Not that this would make any viewer wince. The pacing is sufficiently hurried that by the climax, the warning note has been long forgotten. And Pascal has included a final exit line that is the only reference to cocaine that I can remember in a Sherlock Holmes movie. "Watson -- the needle!" I wonder how it got past the board of review. Maybe the censors hadn't read the stories. Maybe the producers passed the line off as an allusion to Holmes' being a diabetic or being secretly into knitting.

Nothing was shot on location. It's all studio back lot and sound stage. This was standard practice at the time. The Magnificently Collosally Stupendiferous "Gone With the Wind", released the same year, was also studio bound. (I'm glad they discovered location shooting in time for "Lawrence of Arabia.") But in this case the moors of Devonshire, great Gothic swamps punctuated by skeletal black trees and lumpy papier-maché rocks, all shrouded in studio smoke, suggest almost a stylized reality rather than a cheap set. They're quite well done. The only distracting feature is that the outdoor scenes SOUND as if they were shot indoors because of the acoustic liveliness of the sets. You hear an echo on a desolate plain. There actually is a moor near Dartmoor, with clumsily arranged piles of rocks surrounded by a mire. There still are moor ponies, rehistoric remains, and abandoned tin mines. The set decorators did a good job.

Basil Rathbone injects some animation into the character of Holmes, his being new to the role and all that. In a few years the franchise would be moved to Universal Studios, updated, mixed up, and Holmes would turn almost wooden, while Nigel Bruce would sometimes become a buffoon, which he is not here. There's no denying that Rathbone was a very good Sherlock Holmes, probably the best. Jeremy Brett in the TV series was more nuanced but not as masterful, nor as tall, and he didn't LOOK like the Sidney Paget illustrations that went with the original stories in Strand Magazine. On the other hand, Arthur Wontner may have LOOKED more like Paget's drawings but he couldn't act.

This is likely to be as good a Sherlock Holmes story as we're liable to get. It's a little clumsy but it's exciting, suspenseful, and well acted. Besides all that, how can you not see it? Holmes is an icon of vernacular culture and this shows him at his best. Oh -- the puckish title for this comment, "Heir of the Dog"? I stole it from the episode list on the DVD. (One less item for the confessional.)

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The ultimate pairing

Author: emwolf from United States
24 April 2007

I recently re-watched this and am still amazed at how exciting, entertaining and fast-paced this movie is. Leonard Maltin's guide prefers the follow Adventures of Sherlock Holmes because of Rathbone's absence for much of the Hound's middle section. I, however, find that it only adds to the overall suspense of the picture.

Many people have downplayed the Rathbone/Bruce pairing primarily because of Bruce's bumbling and mumbling. In this first outing that is down to a minimum. His Watson, while maybe not the ladies man in Doyle's stories, is still a competent medical man, athletic if stocky and the perfect counterpoint to Rathbone's Holmes.

I did enjoy the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes episodes, but still prefer Rathbone and Bruce because of the remarkable chemistry between the two. I can see these people and believe they actually shared rooms together and liked each other enough to keep that arrangement for many years.

Supporting characters in Hound are noteworthy as well. Lionel Atwill is awesome as the mysterious Dr. Mortimer, and John Carradine is perfection as always.

Highly recommend watching this on a rainy evening. Make it a double feature with Son of Frankenstein for a Rathbone festival.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A Classic

Author: jhboswell from United States
10 July 2006

Well, like the man says, it don't get much better than this. Nearly true to Doyle's story, giving way to good rip-roaring cinematic excitement, it is just great to be swept in to the thrill of the chase here. This film was banned for many years after its first release because of that dumb last line, and I was there in the '70's when it was seen again. Now, on the great DVD from MPI, it's ours any time we want it.

What classic acting! What a fantastic story! This film began a great series in the cinematic Holmes canon. It is paced well, and has great atmosphere.

And, yes, it really does "sound like the cry of a gigantic hound!"

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

way more than elementary

Author: Lee Eisenberg ( from Portland, Oregon, USA
10 September 2014

The first Sherlock Holmes movie starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce is one of the most impressive things ever put on screen. It turns out that this was also the first Sherlock Holmes movie set in the Victorian era, as previous cinematic adaptations - even a series starring Arthur Wontner made a few years before this one - had updated the setting to later eras.

The moors are as much of a character as any of the people (or the hound). The eerie, foggy environs are the perfect place for a mystery. I understand that the Sherlock Holmes books helped revolutionize criminology, due to Holmes's methods of solving the cases. I haven't read any of the books, although I've seen "Young Sherlock Holmes" and the recent movies starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. There's no doubt that "The Hound of the Baskervilles" has held up very well over the years. I hope to see the rest of the Rathbone-Bruce series.

So how about regaling us with the violin?

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The beginning of the Basil Rathbone 'Holmes' series

Author: binapiraeus from Greece
26 February 2014

"The Hound of the Baskervilles", arguably the most famous of all of Sherlock Holmes' cases, was filmed in 1939 - not for the first time, of course (there had already been at least five tries, most notably in 1932 with Robert Rendel), but probably in the most impressive way possible. And it was the first time that Basil Rathbone portrayed the world-famous sleuth from Baker Street - the beginning of a very successful, and very high-class film serial produced by 20th Century-Fox that would comprise all in all 15 movies over the next eight years.

And Rathbone certainly was an ideal choice for the role, both physically and regarding his (on-screen) image: very British, and slightly haughty, but still with a sense of humor - only most of the time at the expense of his friend and assistant, amiable Dr. Watson, who was wonderfully played by Nigel Bruce. In fact, many Sherlock Holmes fans regard Rathbone as THE personification of Holmes (only we mustn't forget Arthur Wontner, who had also played Holmes in five movies, and was at LEAST as close to Conan Doyle's original character, if not even a little bit more...).

Actually, the whole cast is superb: idyllically handsome young Richard Greene as Sir Henry Baskerville, the heir of the huge estate of the Baskervilles, whose father has died under mysterious circumstances in the moor recently, Lionel Atwill as the strange Dr. Mortimer, Wendy Barrie as beautiful Beryl, Morton Lowry as her young step-brother... And no less superb is the direction: foggy Dartmoor probably had never been photographed in such a uniquely creepy way before, providing a perfect background for the murderous ongoings that revolve around the old legend of a horrible hound that scares or bites people to death... But Sherlock Holmes, of course, has got another, much more reasonable theory!

The whole film is immensely suspenseful (with England around 1900 being marvelously recreated in every detail), but especially the dramatic climax in the end is REALLY made for strong nerves - a real, thrilling, classic MUST for every fan of the crime genre!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

an old favorite...creative and unusual stories...

Author: MarieGabrielle from United States
25 April 2011

Remember watching this at grandmother's house, along with other mysteries. This film is often shown during the holidays on TCM and last Christmas (along with the new Sherlock Holmes release with Robert Downey, Jr.) was a festival on TCM classics. Introduced by Ben Mankiewicz.

Excellent film complete with dark foggy moors, moor ponies getting trapped on the heath, a savage beast-dog and John Carradine as a very sinister houseman.

Holmes shows up at the Devonshire estate after Watson has already been received as a guest. There is a wonderful scene where he pretends to be a denizen of the moor, and an old, odd transient man, wandering the heath. Trying to peddle his zither and fuss-el(dog whistle) Basil Rathbone was such a talented character actor. It is a shame we don't really have anyone of his caliber, perhaps in theater , yes, but not film. Films like this are a gem and worth buying the collection for a cold winter's night. Highly recommended and good suspense for children. 10/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The original version & first time with Rathbone & Bruce as famous due.

Author: Jay Harris ( from United States
16 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie & the next (Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) were made by 20th Century Fox, in 1939 & were better than the ones made by Universal in the 1940's. Let us also remember that Universal was not the big studio it is now.

In 1939 one of the studios up & coming stars was Richard Greene. (he later became Robin Hood). He is the top billed actor & actually the major role. He always was a good hero,but not that good an actor. The one & only Basil Rathbone is Sherlock Holmes & Rathbone does what he always did, creating a memorable character. Mr. Rathbone had the fantastic talent to play any sort of role, villain or hero.

A few years prior he created the most memorable Pontius Pilate in a Cecil B. DeMille almost forgettable epic, I may have forgot the title BUT not his Pontius Pilate.(this was before supporting actors got Oscars-) over the years he made many unforgettable characters.

This was his first time as Sherlock. Nigel Bruce was a good Dr. Watson, I never could figure why they made Watson a comic character.

Wendy Barrie is the love interest.(this was then & still is a staple character). I do not think she figures into the original Conan Doyle story. The made a few changes to the original.

Sydney Lanfield (a studio director) did his usual good work. The screenplay was written by Ernest Pascal. Look for Lionel Atwill & John Carradine in supporting roles. They both always gave fine performances.

This is no where a great film, BUT is an enjoyable time spent. It is only 80 minutes long..

One more point of information. They made films fast back them. It too less than 90 days from first day of shooting to actual release date.

Ratings: **1/2 (out of 4) 78 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Best adaptation of a Book I've ever seen!!

Author: brad572 from United States
22 May 2006

I thought that this was the best adaptation of the book ever show on the big screen. I have seen the 1959 remake and didn't care for it as much. Basil Rathbone did an excellent job on playing Sherlock Holmes as did Nigel Bruce as Dr Watson. I have recommended this movie to many people over the years, since I first saw it after reading the book in 8th grade English. I couldn't believe just how much it followed the book to a "T". Maybe a very few variations from book to movie, but I have never seen another movie follow a book so closely. I am a stickler for detail this one had it all. I watch it at least once a year, and will keep on recommending it to people. For Mystery and Suspense lovers you have to try it I guarantee you will love it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 10:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history