Le chien des Baskerville

this is the first filmed version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel.it's also the first of fourteen Sherlock Holmes films Starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as his friend/sidekick, Dr. Watson.this is the second version i have seen,the first being the 1959 version starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.i liked that one more.this 1939 version,while good,is slow at times.the acting is good,as one would expect.the story is interesting.as i said,this is a good adaptation,other than the slow pace.otherwise,i was entertained.interestingly,even though they are the main stars,Rathbone is billed second,and Bruce billed fourth in the film.anyway,it's a pretty good 80 minute or so diversion.for me,The Hound of the Baskervilles is an 8/10

As a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast, I'd LOVE a 100% faithful adaptation of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES; but as a realist, I know that the only way that would happen is if a group of actors read the book word for word on radio or audiotape. After all, what works in a book doesn't always work on screen; and Ernest Pascal's adaptation is faithful to the spirit, if not always the letter, of Conan Doyle's novel (just watch the scene in the hut on the moor when Watson meets up with Holmes, who explains what's going on: 'Murder, my dear Watson. Refined, cold-blooded murder.' The scene as written by Conan Doyle is a bit dry; Pascal expands on it in a way that makes the scene work on film, and in doing so shows that he was clearly in tune with the source material. Yes, some key characters were dropped or had their parts reduced; others were built up so there would be a few more suspects. In the end, however, we're left with what is still the best version of HOUND ever committed to celluloid. Basil Rathbone IS Holmes: even if he had never played the character again, he would still be guaranteed a place among the great portrayers of the detective. Nigel Bruce's Watson is brave and loyal, and not the somewhat bumbling sidekick he became in the later films; and there is a real friendship between his Watson and Rathbone's Holmes which is a crucial element of any portrayal of the characters, yet which is so often missing. As is only natural with a film made more than sixty years ago, it does creak a bit in places; but it's still a wonderful way to spend ninety or so minutes.

This film is a delight! Not only does the story unfold at a fine pace throughout the entire film, the atmosphere is wonderfully ominous in many scenes.

It has been so long since I have read any Sherlock Holmes books that I was able to watch the film without any preconceived notions of what to expect and this film is a near masterpiece. It works as a mystery, as a detective story, a suspense story, a buddy film, a romance, a drama and in places it is as about an effective of an horror film as I've seen lately.

For folks that complain that this movie isn't entirely faithful to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle book it came from, I say, "So What?" Enjoy the book for what it is and do the same with the movie. Very rarely is a movie entirely faithful to an original book and usually for good reason. This movie stands on its own merits as a spectacular film.

Basil Rathbone brings Sherlock Holmes to life vividly. The working relationship between Holmes and Dr. Watson is so well fleshed out on film that it is fun to watch. Holmes disguises are nothing short of entertaining. The young Henry Baskerville is portrayed by a handsome young actor who has screen presence. The spooky "moors" and the Baskerville Estate become a presence just as if they were a character in the film. The entire array of characters introduced to us in this film were all well played and endlessly interesting to watch.

This movie is a must see for folks who like good movies. I give it a 9/10, and that may be a bit too low!

Of the half dozen or so different takes on The Hound of the Baskervilles that I've seen, this one is my favorite - just barely edging out the Hammer film from 1959. Why? There are a number of reasons I could cite.

1. Acting - The 1939 version of the Hound of the Baskervilles has to have one of the strongest casts ever assembled for a Sherlock Holmes film. It's a veritable Who's Who of 1930s/40s horror/thriller stars. Basil Rathbone, Lionel Atwill, John Carradine, Wendy Barrie, and Eily Malyon all give outstanding performances. Even E.E. Clive appears in a small but enjoyable role. And Nigel Bruce, whose bumbling Watson could really get on my nerves, gives one of his best performances as Holmes' sidekick.

2. Atmosphere - If there's something that filmmakers from the 1930s knew how to do and were especially adept at, its creating atmosphere. From the fog shrouded moors to the dangerous London streets, there's enough atmosphere in The Hound of the Baskervilles for two or three movies. The cinematography and lighting go along way to helping create this feeling. It's something that seems lost on many of today's filmmakers.

3. Direction - While nothing outstanding, Sidney Lanfield is nonetheless solid in the director's chair. One key is the pacing he gives to the film. The movie moves along quite nicely with very few moments that slow things down. Sure, this version of The Hound of the Baskervilles may veer away from the original source material, but it's for good reason. The film would have been too slow and, ultimately, quite dull had it stuck too closely to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work. I've read the book, but as much as I enjoy it, I realize changes have to be made for the screen.

While there are a number of other things I could mention in The Hound of the Baskervilles that appeal to me, I'll stop here before this thing gets out of hand. In the end, I've always found this a solid production and a very enjoyable film. I've got no problems rating it a 9/10.

Finally, one thing that has always seemed odd to me is the appeal of The Hound of the Baskervilles. Don't misunderstand, it's a good story. But I'm not sure I understand why it has been filmed more often than any other Sherlock Holmes story. Why would a plot that has its main character (Holmes in this case) disappear for about half the movie be the most famous and most often filmed story from the character's casebook? Like I said, it's just always seemed a bit odd to me.

Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) must protect the heir to a wealthy estate, Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene, who oddly receives top billing). A family legend states that a demonic hound kills all Baskerville men because of something one of their ancestors did. The first Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film. One of two Sherlock films made by 20th Century Fox in 1939 before the series found its home at Universal, with Holmes updated to the present day.

Basil Rathbone is excellent in what would become his career-defining role. To me, Basil Rathbone IS Sherlock Holmes. I know the books have a rabid following and from my experiences with some of these devotees, they don't care much for the Rathbone films. Such is their loss. One of the primary complaints from the book fans is Nigel Bruce's portrayal of Watson. Apparently they feel he's a bumbling cartoon of a character. I can't agree with that. Bruce's Watson is a loyal, brave, warm, decent man. That he is used sometimes to bring levity to the otherwise serious tone of the films is hardly a bad thing, in my opinion. If you want to see a detective series with a truly buffoonish comic relief sidekick, I can recommend plenty.

A wonderful supporting cast backing up Rathbone and Bruce that includes Lionel Atwill, John Carradine, Wendy Barrie, Barlowe Borland, and E.E. Clive. Nice direction, great atmosphere and sets. Love the foggy moor. A good start to a wonderful series.