The Hound of the Baskervilles
November. 03,1983 PG-13Sherlock Holmes comes to the aid of his friend Henry Baskerville, who is under a family curse and menaced by a demonic dog that prowls the bogs near his estate and murders people.
Similar titles
Reviews
Just perfect...
If you don't like this, we can't be friends.
If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Of all the Hound renditions, this one is probably the most precise, and yet it still has to play with Conan-Doyle's wonderful plot. Most of the plot elements are in place, but they had to misuse characters such as Laura Lyons and create an abusive husband, an artist living in the area. Also, they couldn't resist the sappy ending, with Sir Henry and Beryl immediately joining hands. The other issue that I take with virtually every incarnation of this epic is he treatment of Watson. Remember, he is a wise enough soul to write the exploits of Holmes for publication. Once again, he's portrayed as a bit of a buffoon. Let's blame Nigel Bruce for that, one of the worst of the Watsons (though the one first thought of when we look back on our viewing). The two men who portrayed him in the Jeremy Brett episodes captured him so much better. The acting here is OK. Richardson does a pretty good job with the great sleuth. Henry is dull and uninteresting. Stapleton was surprisingly good. Someday, someone will trust the story--unfortunately, I may not live that long.
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.
Ranking this one a point above Rathbone and Brett's versions. Taken as a whole, it's just a little better. Ian Richardson was a splendid Holmes. It's too bad he didn't get to do more of these than just THOTB and TSOF. Donald Churchill is fine as Watson, though David Healy in Sign of Four opposite Richardson is better. Production values are very good, especially for TV, and the supporting cast has gold in it. Martin Shaw is wonderful as Sir Henry, a full-fledged cowboy in this interpretation, and Nicholas Clay is a particularly nasty Stapleton (and Sir Hugo). The scene of Sir Hugo in the swamp with his captive -- well, let's just say you won't be sorry to see him get eaten by a devil dog. Which brings up the hound, one of the main reasons I like this version. The title character looks better here than in just about any previous version. For once, they stick with the novel and make it a spectral dog than glows wildly with fire in the night, and they make it look good. Though he didn't get to do many Holmes films, Richardson did make the series Murder Rooms, based on Dr. Joseph Bell, Doyle's professor who inspired the Holmes character. Check those out after you watch this.
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)