The Hound of the Baskervilles

source: The Hound of the Baskervilles

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson are requested to keep an eye on Sir Henry Baskerville, who has inherited an estate out on Dartmoor. With this estate comes danger as his family is known to be threatened by a wild dog that stalks the Moor. Holmes in colour for the first time as Hammer give it the full blown costume drama pizazz. Great production as Peter Cushing (Holmes), Andre Morell (Watson) and Christopher Lee (Baskerville) act it out with considerable aplomb. Cushing and Morell are particularly effective, Cushing's Holmes is sprightly and never staid, while Morell's Watson is resourceful and a bona fide detective sidekick to the intrepid Holmes. The supporting cast is also filled out with quality British talent, John le Mesurier, Miles Malleson and Francis de Wolfe are involving and integral to the story. Whilst it wouldn't be a Hammer film without the obligatory heaving bosom, which here comes in the form of Marla Landi. The deviation from the source novel may offend some purists, but it works and is actually a pleasant surprise. Hammer were clearly intent on breathing a new life into Sherlock Holmes, and they did so, thus paving the way for the element of surprise. Still holding up well after all these years this is still an essential viewing in the pantheon of Sherlock Holmes adaptations. 7/10

The initial version of HOUND, released in 1939, was the first to introduce Sir Basil Rathbone as the immortal detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, eventually resulting in the actor being the most identified in the role. Twenty years on, his contemporary, Peter Cushing took a stab at it as well, and the results are equally as gratifying. It's interesting to note as well that Andre Morell's interpretation of Dr. John Watson, Holmes' steadfast companion and confidante, paints a more capable and robust picture of the cultured sidekick than the cloud of befuddlement that always seemed to surround Nigel Bruce in his performance. Like Old Faithful, Hammer vet Terence Fisher directs HOUND as more of a stunning crime thriller with horror elements than an out-and-out costume romp, much like the others that the studio became famous (or infamous) for. Allegedly the start of a planned series, the idea was scrapped when Holmes didn't catch on with latter audiences, who were more drawn to Hammer's "Monster" movies with werewolves and vampires. The best treat of all in this case, though, besides seeing British character vets in action like Morrell, John Le Mesurier (Barrymore, the manservant), Francis De Wolff (Doctor Mortimer) and a hysterical turn by Miles Malleson as Bishop Frankland, (worthy of Barry Fitzgerald), is seeing Cushing and Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville sharing scenes together, no matter how briefly, in a non-"Dracula"-inspired context. If you love old-school mysteries, and Hammer films especially, be sure to add this one to your "Must-Rent" list.

This adaptation was really good, on par with the Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett adaptations and marginally better than the Ian Richardson version, though that was decent. It doesn't have the slow pacing of the Jeremy Brett version though, or the rushed ending of the Basil Rathbone film and that is a good thing. Whatever minor flaws this film has, I felt the beginning wasn't quite as atmospheric as the rest of the adaptation, this is still a wonderful film with a great atmosphere and cast. It looks good, the sets are detailed, the cinematography is innovative and the costumes are great, painting a sort of romantic atmosphere in a dark way, while the hound is quite scary. The score is also suitably eerie, the story doesn't meander, the direction from Terence Fisher is excellent and the script is well written. And the acting is wonderful. Personally I thought Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett are better in the role, but Peter Cushing gives one of his finer performances regardless, and he is well supported by Andre Morell who is earnest and likable as Watson and the great Christopher Lee is on top form as Sir Henry. Overall, definitely one of the better adaptations of the book, if not THE best. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I disagree with the majority of comments here--I think the film was a major bomb when it opened--and for good reason. It takes the Arthur Conan Doyle story and gives it details that stray from the original with little or no improvement. Furthermore, Peter Cushing is hardly an inspired choice as Sherlock. Best casting in the whole film goes to Andre Morell who makes Dr. Watson a plausible figure without resorting to the comic relief furnished by Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone films. Nor does Christopher Lee have the qualities needed for the Sir Henry role. At times he looks as though he's ready to develop fangs. Story takes a long time in establishing any clues at all--and then the plotline is so diffuse that only those who are familiar with the Baskerville legend will make sense of the proceedings. The business about the missing portrait is poorly handled. Changing Stapleton's sister to his daughter and then having it played badly by a woman with a heavy accent was a poor idea that does nothing to bolster the efficiency of the story. The only really impressive moments are depicted in the prologue to the Baskerville story. What follows after an impressive opening is a distinct letdown. By no means one of the better Hammer films. Give me the B&W 1939 version with Rathbone, Bruce and the handsome Richard Greene as Sir Henry any day. It had more chilling gothic atmosphere and suspense than anything that happens here, as well as the benefit of Lionel Atwill as Dr. Mortimer. Summing up: good color photography and handsome sets does nothing to redeem the overall poor casting, slow pace and changed storyline.

Spoilers herein. Sherlock was an invention of the times, following the new idea of evolution. The notion of pure reason being able to perceive and comprehend everything in life was especially novel. This was contrasted to the bumbling inductive logic of doctors like Watson. Handling Holmes is easy if you stick to the magic of Holmes working for the reader, making what he/she sees make sense. This production uses the Baskervilles as an excuse to completely reinterpret the stance. Here, the world is the same world as the other Hammer horror films, not inhabited by rational schemers but by scowling evil. Even though the rough facts of the story are retained, the tone is completely transformed. Stay away, lest this color your perceptions of one of the great overblooming ideas: that we can really understand life. Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I would normally not even attempt to watch a Sherlock movie, but seeing as how Peter Cushing was Sherlock and Lee was in it too I decided to give this one a try. Suffice to say I was not disappointed as both were very good in their respective roles as was the fellow who played Watson. This one has Sherlock investigating a curse that kills the head of a family named the Baskervilles. The next target is Lee's character after he inherits his uncle's house after his untimely death. The movie moves at a very brisk pace and is a bit predictable, but still executed very well (though they never explained the doctors part in the movie). There is also a scene at the end I found rather amusing as Sherlock and a couple of others are standing on a hill and this person is sinking in quicksand. They don't really make much of a movie to save the person even though they clearly could. All in all though this one is a well acted move that was interesting to watch.

While ANY Sherlock Holmes movie WITHOUT Jeremy Brett can only be second-rate in my opinion (he is the best Holmes by far), this is still worth watching. Is it a perfect recreation of the book--certainly not, but at least it is more like the original than the Basil Rathbone versions (they were entertaining but bore very little semblance to the original stories). Peter Cushing is fine as Holmes, though it would have been nice if he'd done MORE Holmes movies to see how he would have developed the characterization. For a movie from Hammer Films, the production values are good--special effects and location shooting was very good. I guess my only complaints were too much emphasis on the silly and needless romance between Christopher Lee and the psycho lady. It was way too unbelievable and histrionic and detracted, somewhat, from the story.

Ah, you can't go wrong with Hammer. On the back of the DVD, Newsweek proudly proclaims "The Best of the Sherlocks!", and I have to agree. This is the role that Peter Cushing was born to play, it's a shame he didn't play it as often as he did Van Helsing. His mannerisms, his delivery, even his looks, everything about him is perfect Holmes. The rest of the cast are pretty good too, don't get me wrong, but Cushing puts them to shame. Though he is rather ominous in some scenes, it's nice to see Christopher Lee opposite Cushing as a good guy for a change. I really liked the classic plot, full of surprises, great characters, humor and lots of chances for Cushing to shine. The atmosphere is great, foggy and dark like many Hammer films. Perfect for horror. All in all this is a really fun film, though it does have a few pretty cheesy moments. Good film overall though. 7.5/10

Shortly after their brilliant adaptations of the classic tales of Frankenstein and Dracula, the glorious British Hammer Studios decided to have their take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's immortal detective Sherlock Holmes with "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1959). This turned out to be a splendid idea, as the Hammer formula works magnificently with Doyle's work. Hammer once again teams up Horror's greatest duo, Peter Cushing (as Sherlock Holmes) and Christopher Lee (as Sir Henry Baskerville) in what is another one of many memorable collaborations of the two British Horror deities. In addition, the film features André Morell (who would also star in several other Hammer productions including "The Plague of the Zombies" of 1966) as Doctor Watson. Hammer's trademark eerie Gothic atmosphere with foggy grounds, dark forests etc. fits the "Baskervilles" story like a glove. It has been a while since I've last seen the classic adaptations with Basil Rathbone, and I do not wish to discuss which version of this particular tale is 'better', but I can say that this Hammer version is a truly great gem for every admirer of classic Mystery and Gothic cinema. The film begins truly creepy, with a prologue set in the early 18th century, when Sir Hugo Baskreville, a cruel nobleman who likes to play sadistic games with peasants, gets what he had coming when he makes the encounter of a mysterious beast. From then on, the wild, dog-like creature is known and feared as the 'Hound of The Baskervilles'; according to a curse, this hound is supposed to return and kill any Bakerville who dares to enter the moorlands where Sir Hugo found his end... In the 1880s, the great detective Sherlock Holmes is told about the sudden and mysterious death of Sir Charles Baskerville, a descendant of Sir Hugo. Holmes and Doctor Watson travel to the Baskerville estate, in order to investigate and to meet the new owner, Sir Henry Baskerville, who does not believe in what he considers to be 'old wive's tales'... at first... The film does change the plot of Doyle's classic novel in some details, mainly by adding Horror elements that underline the Hammer-typical creepiness and Gothic atmosphere. Cushing simply is the perfect choice to play Sherlock Holmes. This brilliant actor was fantastic in any role he played, of course, but that of the most famous detective in fiction is one of those that he is particularly predestined for. André Morell is great as Dr. Watson and Christopher Lee is, as always, magnificent in his role. Cushing and Lee truly were the ultimate duo in Horror cinema, and this is yet another fantastic collaboration of these two great men. It is easy to see why Christopher Lee and the late Peter Cushing were best friends in real-life, when watching their ingenious work in any of the films and they did together. Directed by Hammer's Nr. 1 director, Terence Fisher, "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is another great example for Hammer's glorious style of eerie yet beautiful settings, haunting atmosphere and suspenseful storytelling. The settings and photography are wonderful as in most classic Hammer tales, and the entire film is greatly crafted. Many years ago, this was one of the first Hammer films that I saw as a kid, and, after many re-viewings, I still immensely enjoy watching it as an adult. This great little gem only ranks slightly below the brilliant "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" adaptations, and definitely is a must-see for all Hammer fans. Highly recommended!