The Hound of the Baskervilles

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" is not my favorite Sherlock Holmes film: There are problems with the hound no matter how it is portrayed, and the violence in the film is disturbing. "The Hound" has perhaps suffered from overexposure; it is by all odds the most famous of the Sherlock Holmes tales. It lacks the substance of other full-length Holmes films, such as "The Sign of Four" and "The Master Blackmailer." And it lacks the horror of "The Last Vampire," which Conan Doyle wrote as a tribute to his friend Bram Stoker, the celebrated author of "Dracula."

The acting in the Sherlock Holmes films is consistently good. For me as for many other people, Jeremy Brett was the quintessential Holmes. It is a pity he is no longer around to play the part, and an even greater pity that the Holmes films are being remade in what promises to be a greatly inferior version.

This is surely a great adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. And without the shadow of a doubt, the best of them all. To begin with, I believe that the way the legend itself is put is quite ingenious and adequate, for being a legend it cannot be portrayed as having happened. As with every such story it is not exactly real and so space is left to viewers to imagine how much of it is true. Of Brett the best that can be said is that he was Holmes! Whilst everyone else merely played Holmes. The same goes for Hardwicke as Watson, although Burke had come pretty close. I top this one along with The Devil's Foot Root episode, and the scene where Dr. Mortimer talks of his phrenological passion along with the one in The Devil's Foot Root when Holmes uses unusual resources to make his deductions regarding the Vicar Roundhay. The mystery is quite dense and anyone not familiar with Doyle's story will have a hard time making any sort of deductions before Holmes himself reveals his own. The pace of the movie is what it should be. I, for one, am weary of Hollywood's fast and action packed movies. This is one to allow yourself to soak in the atmosphere and appreciate the narrative quality of the story. If it hadn't the mystery it would still have some interest of its own. It is beautifully filmed, although one can discover one or two directing tricks. But that's just me who must have watched it some 50 times! On the whole, be sure to see it, better still, be sure to get a copy of it!!!

Sherlock (Jeremy Brett) and Watson (Edward Hardwicke) are hired by Doctor Mortimer (Neal Duncan) for the investigation a killing , the deceased Sr. Baskerville , who has been inherited by his brother Sir Henry (Kristoffer Tabori) . Watson goes to the mansion , there are the servants (Ronald Pickup) and he meets Stapleton (James Faulkner) and his sister . Meanwhile , an inmate has escaped and on the moors sounds the barking a savage beast .

This is an excellent film of the splendid Sherlock Holmes/Jeremy Brett TV series . It's a genuine ripping yarn with much suspense and intrigue . The film gets mystery , tension , detective action and packs an exciting deal of outstanding surprises with great lots of fun , despite being a known story . Jeremy Brett's magnificent interpretation , although the best Sherlock is forever Basil Rathbone . Brett plays as Holmes as an intelligent , obstinate , broody , pipesmoking sleuth , his acting is similar to Peter Cushing in television or Nicol Williamson (Seven-per-cent-solution) or Christopher Plummer (Murder by decree) in cinema . Here Dr. Watson isn't a botcher , bungler or clumsy partner usually incarnated by Nigel Bruce , but a cunning and astute pal well incarnated by Edward Hardwicke who even achieved recently success as co-protagonist in Oliver Twist (by Roman Polanski) . The movie has a creepy as well as eerie atmosphere , specially when is developed on the moors where lives the fearful giant beast ; besides , the London streets and 223 Baker Street house are well designed . The motion picture was well directed by Peter Hammond .

Other versions about this notorious novel are the followings : 1939 classy recounting by Sidney Landfield with Richard Greene , Basil Rathbone , Nigel Bruce , Lionel Atwill , Wendy Barrie ; 1959 by Terence Fisher with Peter Cushing , Andre Morell and Christopher Lee ; 1977 spoof rendition by Paul Morissey with Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore ; 1983 by Douglas Hickox with Ian Richardson and Donald Churchill ; 2000 TV by Rodney Gibbons with Matt Frewer and Kenneth Welsh , 2002 retelling with Richard Roxbough and Richard Hart , among others .

I am a great fan of the Granada television series starring Jeremy Brett. I have all of the episodes taped, with the Mystery commentaries by Vincent Price. Most of these are gems. There is no doubt in my mind who the best portrayer of Holmes is: Brett, hands down. I have read and taught this story so many times, so when I saw it was next on the docket, I was so thrilled. Unfortunately, it seemed to be a weak entry in the series. If this series is attempting to be true to the works of Conan-Doyle, why doe they once again play fast and loose with characters and plot. Why do they forsake the original story of Sir Hugo Baskerville? Why are some of the significant characters missing. I own at least 12 versions of this story on video, and not one of them follows the plot of the original story. Normally, my belief is that we are dealing with two different media, the silver screen and the printed page. However, when using a novella such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice plot elements and personalities. A few years later, I saw another version on Public Television. A nicely told story, very violent, like this story is. But, once again, a bunch of implanted gobbledygook. This one tries hard to follow the general plot, but it doesn't work. One critic complains about the lack of screen time for Holmes. That's a part of the plot. He is working behind the scenes. Once he arrives in Dartmoor, he has a great deal of screen time. It's not awful, but we had Jeremy Brett at his best; why not make a script that would go down in history.

Though some may find Holmes's long stretches of absence disappointing in this adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles (the most celebrated of all Conan Doyle tales), it should be understood that these absences are in keeping with the original novel. Watson does much of the footwork here, and is separated from Holmes for most of the story. And since Watson was the man who penned the memoirs, he recorded his own experiences. When he was away from Holmes, he could not divine what Holmes was doing, and would only record Holmes's own account of his actions during their separation once they'd been reunited. So, in this respect, this version remains more faithful to the original story than any other. There is, after all, tremendous pressure to pack as much Sherlock Holmes as one can into what is ostensibly a Sherlock Holmes film. It takes guts to keep him out of the picture for as long as this adaptation does...but this adaptation shows its courage in staying true to the text, even if it means leaving Sherlock Holmes out of it, for the most part.

Really, this was the only one of the Granada feature films that could have been made at this time, as Jeremy Brett was (quite noticeably) ill and could not have taken part in a two hour film in which Holmes was on the main stage...the strain would have been too much. As always, Brett's Holmes (when he's around) is a remarkable performance, and Hardwicke's Watson proves yet again why he was a more-than-suitable replacement for David Burke. Overall, a fine adaptation of Sherlock Holmes's most famous adventure. This and, to a lesser extent, the 1983 television version with Ian Richardson are, to my mind, the definitive Hounds.