Customer Reviews

Hound of Baskervilles [VHS]

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

My wife wonders why, oh why, my video/DVD collection contains so many different versions of this classic Sherlock Holmes tale. Well, I understand there have been almost 20 different films based on the story, and I have nowhere near that many. But when push comes to shove, this 1959 Hammer "Hound" starring the wonderful Peter Cushing is probably my most-watched. Rathbone was great, but his version barely had a musical score (imagine having the Hound chase Sir Henry across the moor without a chilling score!) The Brett version is faithful but oddly lackluster. Ian Richardson's version was fine, but felt like a TV movie (which it was).

THIS Hammer film, despite massive wanderings from the original story, just FEELS right. It's spooky. Holmes is eccentric and impatient and perfect. Watson is wonderfully portrayed. The Baker Street rooms are fantastic. And the music--this is the stuff that made me duck my head under the covers when I watched old horror films as a kid.

There are plenty of different versions of "Hound" out there to see. Many have their "moments" of brilliance. But for pure enjoyment, you can do no better than Cushing's version. (I'm still dying to see his 1968 BBC version, almost impossible to get ahold of.) A pleasant, fun, and memorable "Hound of the Baskervilles."

And the few DVD extra features, thanks to Christopher Lee, provide added fun, too.

The most famous Sherlock Holmes story is given a fine Hammer Films treatment. Peter Cushing, more famous for his movie roles as Dr. Frankenstein and Van Helsing of Dracula fame, does very well as Sherlock Holmes. Cushing's late-Victorian portrayal is faithful to the character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Andre Morell is quietly dignified as Dr. Watson. Christopher Lee is atypically cast as the romantic lead, Sir Henry Baskerville. The screenplay is generally faithful to the original novel, although Conan Doyle purists will notice some differences and even omissions in the story's characters. The lush color photography and the rich, old English decor of the sets enhances the spooky atmosphere. Baskerville Hall reminds the viewer of Castle Dracula transported to a remote area in England. The classic mystery tale with supernatural overtones of the hound of hell that haunts the foggy moors and stalks the Baskerville family remains chilling. Although this film is not really targeted at children, it can be recommended as an ideal introduction to the world of Sherlock Holmes for the next generation coming up. It's also great entertainment for older viewers who may recall seeing this film and other Hammer horrors at the Halloween horror-fests at "a theater near you" back in the '60s. Make a big bowl of popcorn, dim the lights, and enjoy the experience.

Anyone who has read the Sherlock Holmes stories has his own personal view of who and what Sherlock is. For me, Peter Cushing is the best and truest interpretation of my view of the character. He outshines J. Brett, Basil Rathbone and all others. The only other actor who comes close is Christopher Plummer in "Murder By Decree" (Holmes meets Jack the Ripper) with James Mason as probably the best Dr. Watson. Cushing was 99% the Holmes I have always pictured.

It is wonderful to see a side of Christopher Lee that is never shown in other films. He proved he can be a fine human character as opposed to the supernatural creatures he is usually associated with.

The only acting choice I have trouble with is the principal female character as played by Marla Landi. She has a heavy accent that is very difficult to understand. For most of her scenes, I had to turn on the subtitles to know what she was saying.

I've never seen a film or TV version completely faithful to the original book, but this version is true to the SPIRIT of the story and is a really engrossing and entertaining film. This should be the true test of the film, does it hold interest, is it well acted and does it entertain. The answers to all of these questions is YES. For anyone wanting an exact reproduction of the original book, it would be better to lock yourself in a quiet room and play the story on the screen of your own imagination. Then you will get the Holmes you dream of and the exact details of the book. For anyone else, this as a fine and satisfying experience.

If anybody was born to play Sherlock Holmes it was Peter Cushing. Sure, Basil Rathbone owns the role but Cushing manages to portray Holmes quirks better than just about any other actor that has taken on the role. Hammer's Hound bears very little resemblence to Arthur Conan Doyle's original, but does manage to inject atmosphere into this Holmes adventure. What's really refreshing is the fact that Watson isn't portrayed as a bumbling idiot as he is in the Rathbone series of films.

Christopher Lee is a bit miscast as Henry Baskerville and the role is significantly underwritten. Lee gives a solid performance but it's evident in watching him that he doesn't quite have a handle on the character. Part of the blame can be layed at the feet of Jimmy Sangster's occasionally incomphrensible screenplay. It's also possible that director Terence Fisher may have had a hand in rewrites as he was known to do so (and the result was usually pretty incoherent).

Fisher's direction is confident and involving although it lacks the zip he exhibited in his finest Hammer films. The color photography is stunning on this MGM/US transfer and the analog artifacts are kept to a minimum. The extras (particular the observations by Lee on his frequent co-star Cushing)are enlightening at times.

Although not the ultimate Hound adaption, Fisher's film is solid entertainment even if it does take signficant liberities with the story.

This film was a bit of a departure for Cushing and Lee, the heroes of Hammer horror. It was also the first Holmes movie filmed in color.

The film starts out very strongly with a recounting of the legend of the Hound of the Baskervilles. David Oxley is excellent as the menacing and evil Sir Hugo. Cushing is wonderful as Holmes, and Lee is a suitable Henry Baskerville. André Morell is not the world's best Watson, but is quite capable in the role.

Unfortunately, I think too many liberties were taken with the original material. The history of the Baskervilles is changed, the origin of the Stapletons, and even the kindly Doctor Mortimer who brings Holmes in on the case has had his personality altered to make him arrogant, pompus, and difficult. The film is also horribly condensed, which may annoy some Holmes followers.

Still the film's atmospherics are very well handled, and of course we have Cushing and Lee. The DVD version is in widescreen, and the transfer is tack sharp. Best of all, there is a wonderful interview with Lee, and he recounts his relationship with Cushing, and the making of this film. Also included are audio excerpts of "Hound" read by Lee.

Although I personally feel that the Rathbone version is superior and follows the original story better, this version is still worth a look. Oxley's performance as Sir Hugo is memorable, and Cushing is an interesting Holmes. The extras with Lee earn it another star.

Peter Cushing is well cast as the mercurial Holmes. Equally well done is Christopher Lee as Henry Baskerville. It is refreshing to see Lee in an altogether different role as the protagonist...he is charming, sensitive and...tanned! The lush Hammer treatment of gloomy backdrop and creepy musical score (reminiscent of the "Dracula" theme music) adds to the experience. One might bypass this as an old relic, but its a riveting story and great flick. Any fan of Lee, Cushing or Hammer Studios will be pleased.

A Sherlock Holmes story wasn't a typical subject for Hammer Studios to film. In the 50's, Hammer was better known for their colorful horror films full of blood, sexy women, and the typically solid acting of Peter Cushing & Christopher Lee. Needless to say, this classic story of Holmes' investigation into the curse of a hellhound is given the usual Hammer treatment. Fortunately, this works all to the benefit of this film, which is both fun and exciting to watch. Peter Cushing, despite being a little too short for the role, is excellent as Sherlock Holmes, conveying both the character's energy and eccentricity. Andre Morrel is solid as the faithful Dr. Watson, while avoiding the buffoonish behavior unfortunately associated with the role. Christopher Lee pretty much has to take a back seat as the endangered heir to the Baskerville fortune, but he puts in a typicially good performance. The film is excellently photographed and it really helps set the creepy mood of the story. While the film takes some liberties with the plot, it is probably the most exciting and engrossing version that I've seen to date. I really recommend this film, especially if you enjoy Hammer films or Sherlock Holmes.

A very good movie here. Whether you've read the book or not, this is some good stuff. Some of those who really love the book have issues with changes in the film, but what else is new, eh? For the first hour, the movie sticks with the book rather well. Some corners are cut and a few minor changes to zoom the pace along, but it still keeps the important points of the novel. It's a little past the hour mark where things start to stray from the source material on a bigger scale. It may have some folks scratching their heads and saying, "why did they even bother changing that?" It seems like it would have been easier to just keep with the book, but Hammer's adaptations have always been known to mess with the book. Horror Of Dracula's a great example, but most agree that the film didn't suffer for it. Hammer's pretty forgivable for changing everything, and that's probably coz their movies are so friggin cool. The Hound Of The Baskervilles is no exception. Once again Peter Cushing is completely incapable of giving a bad performance, and makes a very convincing Sherlock Holmes. The rest of the cast is great as well except the guy who plays Stapleton. He's made too shady and sinister, and too obvious a culprit. Quite opposite of how he was portrayed in the book, but then again that goes back to what I said earlier. Anyhow, this sucker is highly recommended to Hammer fans, and even Doyle fans. The Doyle fans may be a bit upset with the adaptation, but damn it, it's worth it to watch Cushing.

At last this wonderful film gets the treatment it deserves. This is the DVD for Hammer fans. Peter Cushing, Andre Morell, Christopher Lee, all three bundled into a creepy Sherlock Holmes mystery. The picture quality of this film is simply beautiful. I don't know what kind of film element they used, but it was perfect. Peter Cushing does a wonderful job as the quirky, energetic detective. Morell is a more than fine actor, who steps into the role of Watson with a superb, gentle manner. Christopher Lee gets a chance to be the romantic lead, and proves he has no problems stepping into those shoes.

This movie was produced and released close to the same time as the ground breaking favorites, The Horror of Dracula, Curse of Frankenstein, and The Mummy. And like the other films has an excellent script and top-notch film stars. This was the beginning of Cushing's and Lee's international stardom, which has ballooned into a huge cult following over the years.

If you've got a DVD player, and are still holding onto your VHS copy, you might consider trading up. It's well worth it.

I love this movie! The dvd came to me in excellent condition and came right away. My husband and I love watching classics and I recommend this movie if you like spooky old flicks. Besides, how can you not like Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee playing side by side? It's great!