The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

"The Hound of the Baskerville" is such a great story. Why do the producers of the several remakes of the story mess around with the plot. The Basil Rathbone one has seances and other silliness; even the Jeremy Brett one, which for other episodes remains true to the story plots, messes around with the conclusion. It isn't that this isn't somewhat enjoyable. It's just not "The Hound of the Baskerville." One thing I noted was that the character of Watson is treated with some respect. Nigel Bruce is a ding dong, incapable of writing his own name, let alone performing as a published author. There is good atmosphere and the usual Hammer film panache, so stay with it and enjoy it for what it is.

After successfully re-stimulating cinema audience's thirst for classic horror with re-tellings of the Dracula and Frankenstein legends, Hammer Films turned their attention to another piece of classic British literature, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. It seemed logical to adapt Doyle's arguably most popular story, The Hound of the Baskervilles, a tale translated to the screen countless times before and since 1959. This being Hammer however, the Gothic atmosphere and supernatural elements took centre stage, and with Terence Fisher in the director's chair and Peter Cushing donning the famous deerstalker, this is not only one of the finest Holmes adaptations but one of Hammer's most memorable works.Beginning centuries ago, the sadistic aristocrat Sir Hugo Baskerville (David Oxley) is enjoying a night of debauchery when a female prisoner escape and flees into the surrounding moors. Outraged, he pursues her with his pack of hounds, and eventually captures her and stabs her to death. Shortly after, Hugo is killed by an unseen entity that causes him to die with a look of terror on his face. Hundreds of years later, and Sir Charles Baskerville has been found dead under similar circumstances, leaving his only remaining heir Sir Henry (Christopher Lee) to take over Baskerville Hall. Now fearing that Sir Henry may become the next victim of the Baskerville curse, Dr. Richard Mortimer (Francis De Wolff) employs the talents of Sherlock Holmes and his trusted partner Dr. Watson (Andre Morell) to solve the mystery.The film has its problems, mainly with Holmes going missing for a large chunk of the running time and leaving Dr. Watson in charge of the investigation, but thankfully Morell proves to be suitably refined in the role and capable of carrying the movie for this period. The hound at the final reveal is also anti-climatic and rather silly, although this is understandable given that there are no true supernatural powers at work here. These quibbles are overshadowed by some sumptuous cinematography by Hammer stalwart Jack Asher, whose smoky moors really drum up a genuinely spooky atmosphere at times, especially during the surprisingly violent opening scene and the tense climax. This being Hammer, liberties are taken with the source material, but it's all for the sake of good old-fashioned entertainment. It's a shame Cushing and Hammer wouldn't adapt more Holmes stories than they did.

An absolutely brilliant film which is deservedly regarded as one of the jewels in Hammer's crown. Peter Cushing and André Morell are perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson while Christopher Lee is as wonderful as ever as Sir Henry Baskerville. The film has an extremely strong supporting cast including Francis de Wolff, John Le Mesurier, Marla Landi, Ewen Solon and Miles Malleson. From what I can gather (having never read the novel), it takes some liberties but the storyline is essentially the same.This was originally to have been the first in a series of Hammer Sherlock Holmes films but apparently the idea was dropped because the audience didn't want a Hammer series without monsters. That's a terrible shame as I'd have loved more films of this calibre starring Cushing and Morell. However, I'm glad that they chose the best known and one of the most popular stories to adapt for their only Holmesian outing. While this was the only time that he ever played Holmes on film, Cushing reprised his role on television in 1968 and 1984. I also liked the fact that Christopher Lee played a good guy and that he and Cushing were on the same side for once. This is the first film that I've seen them both in which neither of them tried to kill the other even once!

The book has been one of my favorites since childhood. The best thing about this version is the prologue, by far the most impressive visualization of the legend that I have seen. Also, there is much detail to watch throughout. But far too many liberties have been taken with the plot. The ones that annoyed me most were 1) making Sir Henry a heart patient and Miss Stapleton a murderess - so much for their love story; 2) the occult theme that goes nowhere. Who dragged Selden's body to the altar and sacrificed it, and why? I hoped it would turn out to be the Bishop... and 3) making Dr. Mortimer a suspect. Why would he have involved Holmes in the first place, if he had crimes to hide?The casting is really awful. I may respect Peter Cushing in other films, but he is simply the WRONG actor to play Holmes: too short, too weak and old-looking. Christopher Lee should have played Holmes (he did in the 1962 film "Sherlock Holmes and the Necklace of Death") and Cushing should should have been Dr. Mortimer, if he really was needed here. Andre Morell is bland as Watson, and incompetent too: as soon as he is warned about the swamp he steps in it and has to be rescued by the villains! Some protector for Sir Henry.