The Hound of the Baskervilles

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.

SHERLOCK HOLMES: THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES has Ian Richardson in the role of the masterful mystery maven. Having loved both the Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett renditions, I looked forward to this one. I was not disappointed, as Richardson is a fantastic Holmes! Donald Churchill is also quite good as Dr. Watson.

The story itself is well-realized, making the "curse" believable, along with all of the characters affected by it. The finale is especially enjoyable. Many familiar British faces added some fun to the murky moors. How could anyone not smile when Connie Booth (MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS, FAWLTY TOWERS) and Brian Blessed (THE BLACK ADDER) appear as Laura and Geoffrey Lyons? Then, there's Denholm Elliot and Ronald Lacey (both from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK) as Dr. Mortimer and Inspector Lestrade! Great stuff, this!...

Fortunately I was blessed with a lousy memory, because I read the original Conan Doyle novel of this story, and watched at least 3 or 4 screen-adaptations already, but I still manage to get surprised by the denouement every single time! With regards to my expectations towards this 1983 made-for-TV version, they were merely just set on average. Not because I don't have faith in the skills of director Douglas Hickox and his crew, but rather because the older versions of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" are so phenomenal! Notably the 1939 version (with Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce and Lionel Atwill) and the 1959 version by Hammer studios (with Peter Cushing, André Morell and Christopher Lee) are awesome movies, and I simply assumed this TV-movie had few to nothing to add.

Well, I love to be proven wrong! This is a really solid and respectable interpretation or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most legendary novel. It's a very faithful adaptation, and the overall macabre atmosphere of the story is done justice by the exquisite use of décors, scenery and filming locations. The nightly escapades in the Devon' moors are effectively unsettling, the flashback - with footage of a drowning horse - is haunting, and the sequences with the titular hound are spooky. If you like fog, eerie howling, sinister old mansions and more fog, you will LOVE this film! The only blemish I can give, perhaps, is that both the Holmes and the Watson characters are blindly modeled after how Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce depicted them. Ian Richardson and Donald Churchill, although both giving stellar performances, don't seem to bring any of their own input in their characters. Apart from that; - great movie! Very much recommended.

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.