Review of The Hound of the Baskervilles

This version of The Hound of the Baskervilles is the third I've seen in the past week or so. It's also a first time viewing for me. My initial reaction – I'm somewhat disappointed based on many of the reviews I've read on IMDb. While I enjoyed it much more than the 1978 abomination, I much preferred the 1983 version – also a TV movie. There's little doubt that Jeremy Brett makes a fine Sherlock Holmes (though having grown up with Rathbone, he gets my vote for the best) and Edward Hardwicke wisely plays Watson less the bumbling fool. The rest of the actors are at least adequate, though I thought Fiona Gillies was horribly miscast as Beryl. The authentic looking locations, both moors and other sets, add a lot to the production. But the weakness in the film is in its direction and pacing. Had director Brian Mills kept things moving at a better pace, it might have been more enjoyable effort. As it is, there are some stretches that are difficult to get through. After a nice start and a decent enough third act (although it did feel a bit rushed), the middle portion of the movie grinds to a halt. Finally, who thought it would be a good idea to color the hound a glowing green color in post production? It reminded me of something you might see from a poverty row studio of the 1940s.