To select just one representative Sherlock Holmes film from the hundred or so made since Sherlock Holmes Baffled is a virtual impossibility, especially as no one actor (including such famous talents as John Barrymore, Clive Brook and Raymond Massey) has yet managed to successfully transfer the true Holmesian character to the screen… But if one has to be singled out probably the best choice would be the 1939 version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles," the most famous of all Conan Doyle's long novels and the film that introduced Basil Rathbone in the part of Sherlock Holmes…

Although no less a critic than Graham Greene found Rathbone unacceptable, complaining of his good humor and general air of refreshing health, the tall, thin British born actor is still the man most people associate with the role… He played in 14 Holmes movies between 1939 and 1946, two "A" productions and twelve double features…

Set in the correct period, "The Hound of the Baskervilles" follows Conan Doyle closely including only one scene, a séance, not in the original story… Its opening sequence on a deserted moor with a man running in terror from the unseen beast and its climax with Holmes going out alone into the foggy night to track down the "Hell Hound" really catches the suspense and mystery of Conan Doyle's story…

The film is most impressive when it convincingly sketches in the streets and fashions of Edwardian London, a remarkable achievement when one considers that recreation of London and English settings has not been one of Hollywood's strongest points over the years…

The final curtain line makes it difficult to believe that the film was made in 1939 with all the restrictions and censorship of that period… References to Holmes' drug taking have rarely if ever been made in Holmes movies but in "The Hound of the Baskervilles" the great detective stalks out of the room calling to his ever faithful companion, "The needle, Watson, the needle."

Just like the other Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce film made by 20th Century Fox in 1939 with the same cast (THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES), this is an excellent interpretation of the Conan Doyle stories and is FAR closer to the original character than the later Universal Rathbone/Bruce series. This later series looked much the same with many of the same actors BUT Holmes was transported to the present time and often fought Nazis--something the original Holmes NEVER would have done. So, because it is so much closer to the original I definitely enjoyed the film. The only reason I didn't enjoy it more is because the Jeremy Brett series from the 1980s was just about perfect for die-hard "Doyle-heads" like me! This is saying a lot because I originally saw the Fox/Universal Sherlock Holmes movies BEFORE reading the stories and seeing the Brett series--the tremendous quality of the later films took me from a "the only REAL Holmes is the one played by Basil Rathbone" type person to the obsessed purist I am today. I simply adored the original stories so much, I want to see a film that is 100% faithful--and the Brett series is as close as you're going to get.

Now this isn't to say that this is a bad film or you should avoid it. It is STILL excellent and better than most Holmes movies I have seen. It's just that if you the type fan I am, you will not be completely satisfied. To me, Watson as played by Nigel Bruce is just too stupid and ridiculous (Watson in the stories wasn't a complete bumbler). Plus, the end where it is left completely vague as to whether or not the murderer is even caught is also a major problem. In the Peter Cushing version by Hammer Films, it was very satisfying to see the jerk meet his end--this one just seemed flat. On the positive side, the humorous little scene FOLLOWING this was pretty cute and made me laugh.

So, the bottom line is that this was a well-made film with good acting and all, but it was not perfect and could have used a few small changes to have it merit a higher score. Plus, if you are not an obsessive-compulsive about the Holmes character, this movie IS a lot of fun and quite entertaining.

The book is truly great, compelling and terrifying all at once. This 1939 film adaptation stayed true to the spirit of the book, if not word from word, and on its own it is classy, chilling and atmospheric. The cinematography is superb, and the moor scenery makes up the suitably macabre atmosphere. Throw in some great acting, haunting music score and a truly terrifying hound you have a near perfect adaptation. What let it down for me though was the last five or so minutes, of course I loved the clever reference to Holmes's drug addiction (though people may think Holmes had taken up sewing), but the revelation of the culprit was too rushed for me.

However, apart from that, this is extremely good stuff. The script had a strong sense of intelligence, and the climatic scenes with the hound itself were suspenseful and chilling to say the least. The acting is of high calibre, while I personally think Jeremy Brett is the definitive Holmes, Basil Rathbone is absolutely superb here. He looks as though he is having a great time, making Holmes witty, dynamic and sophisticated, and that was a sheer delight to see. Nigel Bruce while not as good as Rathbone, makes a fine Dr Watson. Out of the stellar supporting cast, John Carradine and Morton Lowry stood out as Barryman and Stapleton, while Lionel Attwill's Dr Mortimer is also effective. Also as Sir Henry Baskerville, Richard Greene has the screen presence and charm to make himself memorable. All in all, almost perfect, nevertheless a classy and atmospheric adaptation of a great book. 9/10 Bethany Cox