Sherlock Holmes - Le Chien des Baskerville

Having watched the film I had to check the IDMB reviews..

and, Yes, I agree, overall an enjoyable film but am I the only one to notice that Martin Shaws performance has been dubbed? Listen and watch closely. Certainly not his voice, (even allowing for an American accent,) and the lip sync is slightly out on occasions.

However this only detracts slightly from the film.Ian Richardson certainly holds the whole thing together with a fine performance. The village scenes are possibly over populated but I get the feeling that the production is aimed also at the American market and therefore some aspects of English country life have been over emphasised to fall in line with the American view of our country.

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...

This film obviously takes its casting from the portrayals of Holmes and Watson by Rathbone and Bruce, rather than from the book. Richardson is smarmy, jovial and cheery, with none of Rathbone's cold precision and sharpness. Churchill is more idiotic as Watson than even Nigel Bruce could manage. An insipid and clueless Inspector LeStrade is added for no other reason, apparently, than the writer's feeling that a Holmes story needed him.

The sets looked good. Some of the additional characters are quite well done (with the exception of the butler and his wife, who sleepwalk through their lines.)

This film pales next to almost any of the other film adaptations of Hound. The best is the Rathbone/Bruce version. The Hammer films version gives us Peter Cushing as an excellent Holmes surrounded by those lovely Hammer sets.

The 1988 Jeremy Brett TV film suffers from being filmed on a TV budget, but gives us what is probably the most faithful rendition of Holmes and Watson, with Watson coming off as Holmes' strong right hand, rather than as a buffoon. Watch any and/or all of these, but only watch this version if you have run out of other versions to watch.

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)