Sherlock Holmes - Le Chien des Baskerville

Having seen the Rathbone, Cushing and Brett versions, I settled down to watch this expecting a run-of-the-mill, made for TV "quickie" which would be instantly forgettable and just "yet another" rendition of a tale all too frequently told. I was very pleasantly surprised to find a very good production with excellent direction, ensuring that it whisks along at an excellent pace and that the viewer's attention never flags. Some parts of Richardson's portrayal of Holmes do not gel, (especially the ludicrous 'gypsey' scenes), but, overall, I think he does a first rate job and, in my view, exceeds the value of the performances by Rathbone and Cushing, which, while very good in their own day, are now hopelessly dated, (to the point of caricature in the case of Rathbone and virtually ALL of the supporting players in the 1939 version!)Good supporting roles also from Martin Shaw as Baskerville and David Churchill as an entirely credible Watson, avoiding the buffoonery of the Rathbone version but also not the "over-compensation" of the Hardwick portrayal in the Brett version. This latter version, (as with the complete ITV series starring Brett, (which must rate as THE "definitive" version of the Holmes stories on screen, (whether large or small)), must probably maintain its status as the "best" version I have seen to date, BUT the Richardson one is only just behind and, as already said, in terms of overall pace and energy probably exceeds it! A pity we did not see Richardson don the deer stalker more often!

With is terrific production values, marvelously atmospheric sets and perfect casting (with just one weak link: Martin Shaw as Sir Henry Baskerville), this could have been a great mystery movie, but it does not fulfill one of the basic requirements of the genre: that you shouldn't be able to figure out the villain's identity before the movie reveals it to you. Even if you haven't read the novel or seen any of the other film versions of it (and I haven't), most of the plot twists can be seen well in advance. (**1/2)

The Hound of the Baskervilles is, of course, the Sherlock Holmes mystery where Holmes goes undercover for the whole middle part. He is always lurking just offstage, but in this 1983 production we especially miss, for an awful lot of the film, the marvelous voice and presence of Ian Richardson. If like me, you tracked down this mystery solely to get more of the virtuoso Richardson, whose acting highlighted the BBC House of Cards trilogy, this gap will disappoint you, although we are compensated by the great Denholm Elliott as the country doctor who comes to Baker Street to fetch Holmes. These are the acting highlights: Martin Shaw as the young American Baskerville heir seems to be thrusting his way through on sheer goodwill--he is likable enough that you wish that for his own sake, Sir Henry would heed the many warning signs, head back to London and take acting lessons. Meanwhile, stuck in small parts as the mansion's head servants are Eleanor Bron and Edward Judd --now there's a pair who could have made a great Holmes and Watson on their own. There is just enough good stuff here to carry you through—cinematographer Ronnie Taylor makes the scenes on the open moors in daytime epic in scope, and the night scenes amid the boggy, fog-shrouded moraine around the remote mansion are often scary. In the grand climax, a chase by black silhouettes against bottomless fog is staged and filmed with great skill. On the other hand, too often this "Hound" offers the standard Masterpiece Theatre stuff of lamplit Victorian parlours, tame-looking city streets and city folk hobnobbing with the rustic locals, and seems pretty generic considering the acting and storytelling talents elsewhere on display.

Prior to the 1988 adaptation from Granada Television, I would say that this was the best adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. It stays close to the source for the most part...but most of the changes it makes are needless ones, which is somewhat puzzling. Why omit Arthur Frankland? Why introduce Lyons, when he clearly has little function in the story? Some of the changes do actually work, however...including the bit with the gypsy. And in total, this Hound is entertaining and certainly has its moments.

Ian Richardson is a fine Holmes, even if he seems a bit too good-natured. Perhaps this was a throwback to the old Basil Rathbone Holmes persona...and it works in this context. Richardson is hardly the moody Holmes of Arthur Conan Doyle...but definitely fun to watch. Unfortunately, Donald Churchill is not one of the great screen Watsons. He is a definite step down from his immediate predecessor, David Healy, who portrayed the good Doctor opposite Richardson in The Sign of Four. As the films were produced in the same year, by the same producer, one must wonder why Healy did not reprise the role for Hound. Instead, we are presented with a rather too blustery Watson, almost reminiscent of Nigel Bruce, though not nearly as appealing. Churchill looks the part, but not much else.

Ron Lacey is a treat to watch, as always...this time, playing it straighter than usual in his role as Inspector Lestrade, whose participation is greatly enhanced in this adaptation, for he appeared in the novel merely as a minor supporting character, showing up toward the end. Here, he is on the scene quite early, though behaving in an uncharacteristically antagonistic fashion. Ron Lacey would, of course, show up in another Holmes adventure before too long...appearing as both Thaddeus and Bartholomew Sholto in the 1986 Granada adaptation of The Sign of Four.

All things considered, this is a good adaptation. It is simply not the best. That honor goes to Granada's production. Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes was the very essence of the literary character and very little of the novel was changed for the sake of that particular adaptation. This production runs a distant second...though prior to Granada's Hound, this one was easily the best of the bunch. It may, in fact, simply be a matter of individual taste. Neither film can be considered bad, by any stretch of the imagination. The preference, I suppose, depends solely on what one may be looking for in a Hound adaptation. I suggest seeing both this and the 1988 Granada production, and making up your own mind.

Quite a solid rendition of the quintessential Sherlock Holmes case as TV movies go, though clearly still not a patch on either the 1939 Fox or 1959 Hammer big-screen versions. I liked Ian Richardson better here than in the same year's THE SIGN OF FOUR – perhaps because his tendency to go over-the-top gets channeled this time around through Holmes' own penchant for disguise! Even the rapport with Dr. Watson (a different actor from his subsequent effort) seems to be more congenial – if still basically a comic foil a' la Nigel Bruce. Again, the rest of the cast list is peppered with established performers: Martin Shaw (amusingly decked-out in Texan attire!), Nicholas Clay (in the proverbial dual role at the core of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic tale), Denholm Elliott (playing a different role to the one he had had in the 1978 spoof), Ronald Lacey (as Inspector Lestrade), Brian Blessed (though his gruffness borders on caricature!), Connie Booth (Mrs. John Cleese!), Edward Judd (nearly unrecognizable) and Eleanor Bron. The titular creature, too, with its constantly radiant eyes and at, one point, his entire frame appears to glow, was presumably envisaged as the typical movie monster (let us not forget there were at least two 'hell hound' movies some years previously – one of which I should be checking out soon, incidentally – while the Stephen King adaptation CUJO was released the same year). That said, director Hickox was well-versed in this sort of thing, and he handles proceedings with customary professionalism (albeit, understandably, on a small scale). This is now the seventh version of the tale that I have watched – 1939, 1959, 1968, 1972, 1978 and 2002 – and, for what it is worth, there are still a few out there which I would not mind checking out in the long run...