[josemas]

Just saw Shyamalan's "Devil" movie, and wow. Just wow. Even excusing the premise that one of the people trapped in an elevator is literally Satan. The kind of thing that would be best suited to a weak episode of Night Gallery, but here stretched over a feature-length film.- this was bad.

I didn't find this film nearly so bad.  I wasn't expecting much though.  I knew it was a low budget (by Hollywood standards) sort of film with a non star cast so I wasn't expecting much more than a "TV movie of the week". 
It probably wouldn't have even gotten a theatrical release if Shyamalan's name wasn't connected with it.  His actual involvement with the film wasn't as deep as some of his earlier films.  He was just one of several producer's of the film and actually only wrote the original story.  He neither directed the movie nor wrote the film's screenplay.

Best

Joe

[Captain Audio]

Just saw Shyamalan's "Devil" movie, and wow. Just wow. Even excusing the premise that one of the people trapped in an elevator is literally Satan. The kind of thing that would be best suited to a weak episode of Night Gallery, but here stretched over a feature-length film.- this was bad. I'll save you the time and just post the "best" scene in the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZo2oz97Ijg&feature=feedf

Can't argue with THAT empirical evidence I guess.

I've thought the same of every Shyamalan film I've seen. They would have made great one hour episodes of an anthology series, but just don't have the legs for a 90-120 minute film.
Also the acting is inexplicably flat, no matter how accomplished the actors. Theres little depth to any character, even the main players.

[narfstar]

His surprises are often not much of a surprise

[profh0011]

Last night:  THE SIGN OF FOUR  (1983)

My personal favorite version of the three that I have of this story. This is the one Sy Weibtraub (TARZAN!) produced with Ian Richardson as Holmes, at the time, my vote for possibly the GREATEST Holmes actor ever. (And to think, Jeremy Brett started his series the SAME year! But Richardson's got here first.) David Healy, who I've seen in a few things (including a favorite RETURN OF THE SAINT episode) had done extensive voice-work on Gerry Anderson shows. Oddly enough, Inspector Layton (who the IMDB claims was Lestrade but had his name changed in the dubbing process!) was played by Terrence Rigby, who'd been Tom Baker's Watson. Meanwhile, the film opens with the elder Mr. Sholto played by Thorley Walters, who'd played Watson opposite Christopher Lee, Douglas Wilmer AND Christopher Plummer! Somehow, until last night, I never recognized him in this.

The film (as several people at the IMDB stress) is heavily re-structured, and reminds me on that score of Connery's DR. NO in that in actually eliminates MOST of the "mystery"-- for the audience. We SEE it all happen, then watch as Holmes figures it out (and Layton, DOESN'T). Richardson is one of the most energentic and good-natured Holmes ever, laughing so much one feels he's enjoying being smarter than everyone else, at least when he's working on a case.

Although the Jeremy Brett-Edward Hardwicke version only a few years later steers much closer to the book, I found I enjoyed this one much more. It's just so full of ENERGY, including the climactic boat chase, where the director somehow manages to make 2 relatively slow-moving boats look exciting.


For the life of me, I can't imagine why Healy failed to return for the follow-up (which I saw first, HBO ran them in the wrong order). Weintraub & Richardson were set to do an entire series of these, but apparently threw up their hands when they saw the Granada version being made at the same time.




I was meaning last night to watch the Brett version tonight... but completely forgot until just this moment.  Instead, I watched MOTHER HUNT on NERO WOLFE.  I could just about follow this one (a rarity), though I'm still not sure WHY it was so important for the guy who pulled the "prank" to cover his tracks that he wound up KILLING two people to do it. (Every one of these things feel like they should have an epilogue, and there never is one.)

[profh0011]

Over at the IMDB, quite a few reviews of the Ian Richardson THE SIGN OF FOUR put it down by comparison to Jeremy Brett's version, JUST because Brett's is more faithful to the book.

Well, I watched Brett's again last night, and seeing the two so close to each other, the differeences (and similarities) were all the more apparent.  In Brett's (and presumably the book), Miss Marston comes to Holmes at the start of the story, we then meet Thadeus Sholto, then we find his brother's been killed. All without seeing more than the barest glimpse (in the opening credits) of who did it, and virtually NO idea why. Strangely, Major Sholto in this version died 6 YEARS before the story started, instead of 3 days. Which got me thinking... WAIT a minute! Am I to believe Jonathan Small hung around for 6 years until the Sholto brothers FINALLY found the treasure?? Or did he just happen along at that moment?

This isn't the nly such instance like this in the Brett film.  He has Wiggins and the "Irregulars" searching for the missing steam boat. At one point, one of the boys finds it.  Then, Holmes, in disguise, visits the yard. Later still, he explains that he realized if it was missing from the river, it must be in for repairs. And yet, the man working on the boat says he can find nothing wrong with it.

Now, in the Richardson version, Holmes realizes the bit about the repair yard, and visits the wife of the boat owner in disguise to learn WHICH yard. At which point, Wiggins confirms, yes, it is there. So Wiggins gets the extra money, but we never see this in the Brett version, where it appears they found it independantly of each other. Also, the whole reason Small & Tonga were hanging around was they wanted to get "The Grand Mogul" gem, but this is never even seen in the Brett version, and only mentioned offhandedly. So I can't fathom, purely from watching the Brett version, WHY they were waiting around, as if asking to be found and arrested?

Then of course, almost the entire last half hour is nothing but ONE LONG INTERMINABLE FLASHBACK to what happened 10 years earlier in India, and then at the island prison. Someone pointed out that Arthur Conan Doyle had this "problem", that his stories were ideally short stories, and he did 4 novels, and ALL of them have serious structure problems.  I only recently noticed how both A STUDY IN SCARLET and THE VALLEY OF FEAR (neither done by Brett) featured LONG flashbacks to events in America, with someone tracking someone else to Europe for revenge in BOTH stories.  In one, a man who loved a murdered woman wants revenge on her killer.  In the other, a criminal wants revenge on the lawman who broke up his gang.  And here in THE SIGN OF FOUR, we have a convict wanting revenge for the army officer who betrayed not only him and his partners, but his own fellow officer as well, who he murdered.

By having the entire flashback at the end, andhaving it go on and on and ON for so long, it makes the entire last part of the story exhaustingly anti-climactic. I swear... they "fixed" this with Ian Richardon! Someone I know often made a strong point than many bad books have been turned into great films. While the reverse is certainly also true, I do wonder sometimes if some novelists really know what they're doing at all.


Tonight I'll be watching the 3rd version I have on tape... the one with (of all people) Charlton Heston.  If memory serves, while the Richardson one changed things by starting with a sequence where major Sholtoi died and his sons found the treasure, the Heston version actually STARTS in India!!! --then jumps ahead several years.



Anybody seen any of these-- or any OTHER versions of this story on film?

[bowers]

I do remember seeing Heston's "Crucifer of Blood" a few years ago, but was not very impressed with it. Between the Richardson and Brett versions, I must say I do prefer the Brett version but both were very good. Also found a reference to another version filmed in Canada, starring Matt Frewer. Evidently Hallmark had made four 90 minute Holme's episodes, all starring Frewer. The reviews were pretty tame, and one hinted that these may have been aimed at a more juvenile audience. Still, I'd certainly like to see them. Also found a reference to an early '80s animated version, starring Peter O'Toole as Holmes. (O'Toole would also much later play Conan Doyle in "Fairy Tale: A True Story"). Our local PBS is also rerunning the new "Sherlock" series. Not to get political , but there is currently an effort by some politicians to completely defund PBS and NPR. So guys, watch these shows while you can because I doubt anyone else will pick them up! Cheers, Bowers

[narfstar]

When my son was little we had an animated Hound of the Baskervilles that was pretty good. I do not remember who did the voices

[bowers]

Narf, there was, indeed, a series featuring O'Toole as Holmes. "The Baskerville Curse" was one of the episodes. Cheers, Bowers

[profh0011]

I was really surprised to read the other day that Billy Wilder originally wanted Peter O'Toole to star in THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (and with Peter Sellers as Watson!!). While I can picture O'Toole, Sellers is another matter...


Several years back I watched 6 different versions of "HOUND" in one week, taking notes to keep track of which characters & events were in each version (or not). Thinking of that inspired me to finally do the same with THE SIGN OF FOUR. I originally viewed "CRUCIFER" as just an "interesting footnote" (as so many Holmes films tend to be), but watching all 3 of these as a set somehow made it more interesting.  I actually enjoyed most of the changes in the story, at least, until the last 15 minutes.  (Someone at the IMDB referred to it as, "THE SIGN OF FOUR meets THE MALTESE FALCON".)

[profh0011]

Now here's some stuff I didn't know about the Ian Richardson series vs. the Jeremy Brett series...


http://www.sherlock-holmes.org.uk/world/irichardson.php

[bowers]

I think O'Toole would have made a rather good Holmes! I believe it's really difficult to bring a book to film, as the mediums are so very, very different. What seems to be a subtle nuance in one may come across as heavy-handed or "hammy" in the other. In some films, such as "The Maltese Falcon", it helped to have Hammet working on the screenplay. Even though some of the dialogue was almost word-for-word, the script was written as a movie, not as an adaptation of the book. I have no idea if Hammet was happy about this or not, but it worked! Each medium must tell the story in its own way to be successful. In some cases, I find that I enjoy the film version better than the book. I don't particularly care for Agatha Christie's writing, so I really don't much care if "Poirot" or "Partners in Crime" follow her stories or not. I just want to enjoy a good show. Cheers, Bowers

[profh0011]

I understand what you mean about "different mediums" and agree to a point. A perfect example that comes to mind is CASINO ROYALE, where I always hated the 2nd half of the book. the TV adaptation actually skipped the entire 2nd half. But when they did it with Daniel Craig, they COMPRESSED the entire book into the 2nd half of the movie, then compressed the 2nd half of the book into not 1/4th but 1/8th of the film... leaving another 1/8th at the end for an all-new ACTION climax. They took a book I remembered reading with such clarity from decades bvefore, and brought it to LIFE on the screen (something I hadn't seen happen in ages), and, in my view, IMPROVED on the thing.


But that doesn't happen all the time... or even that often.


The unfortunate tendency in Hollywood is not so much to "adapt" but to use the concept of "adapting" as an EXCUSE to throw away the book and for whoever's doing the movie to use it to show off their own ideas, obsessions and EGOs. If ia book is really good enough to make a movie from, it deserves more respect than that.


That said, the various DRACULA adaptations, each so completely different from each other, continue to fascinate me. It may be one of the only instances I can think of where, perhaps because each film is SO different, instead of comparing one against the other, they each wind up standing on their own merits.  In the case of the 1958 Hammer film, where the STRUCTURE of the book is just about all that remains, I wind up feeling, "TO HELL with the book-- this is a DAMNED good movie!"

[bowers]

Amen, Brother! Cheers, Bowers

[narfstar]

Yes the woes of adapting a good book. Dean Koontz only allowed TV adaptations where he could have more control since he felt they screwed up the movies. On the other had John Grisham is adapted pretty faithful and sometimes almost word for word. Dracula is a special case. It has not been so much adapting the book but utilizing an interesting character.

[profh0011]

In the 60's there was an article in FAMOUS MONSTERS which discussed the argument of which famous version of DRACULA was closer to the book-- Lugosi or Lee?  Kinda silly, when you look back on it.  Then Jess Franco did his version-- also with Lee-- and attempted (BADLY!) to be the first time the book was followed.  Some years back I recall watching it and thinking, good script, cast, sets, locations, costumes, music, etc. In other words, potentially, a good movie. But you look at the finished product... LOUSY directing, sound, lighting, editing, and some of the worst camera work in the history of film (I understand Franco's regular cameraman is notorious in this score).

7 years later, the BBC tried it again, and was vastly more successful. A few minor changes, but the main detriment was being shot on videotape, so it had a look similar to 70's DOCTOR WHO. When I watched all my DRACULA films as a marathon the other year, the only thing I really found myself wishing about the film was... as GOOD as Louis Jourdan was, (AND HE WAS TERRIFIC!!) I really wished they'd gotten Christopher Lee to do it!  because as BAD as Jess Franco's film was (AND IT WAS!), Lee was FANTASTIC in it. and I had just read the novel... and in my mind, there was no question. Lee's version of the character WAS exactly what Bram Stoker had written. The guy was a totally EVIL BASTARD!

Having read the book, the BBC version felt like a "Reader's Digest" version. And the Jess Franco film felt like a "Reader's Digest" version of the BBC film! To be honest, I came away from the book feeling that, the only way to do it "properly"-- if anyone ever really wanted to-- would be "DARK SHADOWS" style. That is, about a solid MONTH's worth of daily half-hour episodes. It would take THAT much film to get the whole thing down!!

So, when it comes to being "faithful", I just enjoy the Louis Jourdan film. But the Lugosi film, the Lee films (each of them has something to reccomend them, they somehow managed to squeeze a little bit of the book into EACH one of his somewhere, strange as that seems), all continue to grow on me over the years. Even the recent BBC version, which has more twists and changes than even the Hammer film, is interesting on its own terms.



One thing I found interesting was how most versions try to "explain" Renfield (if he's in the film at all). There's a reason for this. There IS no explanation for him in the book. I kept hoping there would be, but the entire thing with Renfield at the insane asylum seems like a badly-developed sub-plot tacked on where it didn't belong. I came away feeling a good editor would have insisted the whole thing be cut before publication! Really. I suppose one could say some of the screen-writers are doing a better job than Stoker did on that score.

[profh0011]

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES   (1983)
Most Visually Beautiful Version of "Hound"   *********

    What a stunningly BEAUTIFUL movie!!! By far the most visually sumptuous version of this often-filmed story, and between the directing and editing, one of the most exciting. Although they strayed from the book in a few places, mostly adding new things rather than leaving things out, it generally follows the story. All the new additions are balanced out by simplifying ("dumbing down"?) the dialog (MOSTLY obvious if you happen to watch it back-to-back with other versions) and TIGHT editing. There's hardly a casual entry shot anywhere in the film. Like the "007" movies, characters don't walk into a room, CUT!, they're already there and talking. Someone complained this was "too long", yet it feels CRAMMED with so much detail, I almost wish it were at least 15 minutes longer.

    Ian Richardson, in retrospect, reminds me of an older version of Ronald Howard's Holmes-- lively, impish, full of energy and humor. Donald Churchill (inexplicably replacing David Healy from the previous Richardson film) seems to be doing a somewhat laid-back Nigel Bruce impression. Denholm Elliot is delightfully "amiable" (a word Holmes uses to describe him) as Dr. Mortimer. Edward Judd (who I recall from THE NEW AVENGERS episode "TO CATCH A RAT") is the butler Barrymore, while Eleanor Bron ("Ahme" from HELP!) is his wife. Stapleton is played by Nicholas Clay, who'd been "Lancelot" in John Boorman's EXCALIBUR! Laura Lyons (a character who only appears in certain versions, including this one, Tom Baker's and Jeremy Brett's) is played by Connie Booth (from FAWLTY TOWERS) while her husband, not seen in any other version, is the larger-than-life booming figure of Brian Blessed. His addition gives the film an extra suspect and red herring.

    This is simply an incredible movie to watch, although I do feel Tom Baker had a MUCH better script (though much poorer budget-- NOBODY mentions his, everybody goes on about Jeremy Brett's, which was SO BADLY directed it was a crime!). Continuing with comparisons, I was amazed some years ago when I decided the Basil Rathbone version, overall, was simply the "BEST FILM", although Peter Cushing's is incredibly fun to watch on its own merits (just as his version of DRACULA also was-- no surprise, same director there).

    I've seen SEVERAL versions of HOUND since this, and several others I haven't mentioned before this, but NONE of them come anywhere close to this (or Rathbone, or Cushing, or EVEN Baker!!).

    Oh yes, and the ending, where Holmes reveals to Sir Henry exactly who Beryl really is, proves to be one of the best-written scenes in the film. Intelligent, and sympathetic. Wonderful piece of work!

[profh0011]

Tonight:

CALLING BULLDOG DRUMMOND  (1950)


Walter Pidgeon, who earlier had played NICK CARTER, now takes on this long-running character. He's called out of retirement by Scotland Yard to tackle a robbery gang that appears to consist of ex-military men. The baddies are played by Robert Beatty (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY) and Bernard Lee (THE THIRD MAN, DR. NO and many sequels). Hugh Drummond's longtime best friend "Algie" this go-round is played by David Thomlinson (MARY POPPINS). Beating THE AVENGERS to the punch by over a decade, Drummond is teamed with a WOMAN police sergeant, who at one point tells him, "We're LIBERATED now, we can vote and everything." (Very close to what Joanna Lumley told John Steed in THE NEW AVENGERS!)

[josemas]

Prof, 

I'm really enjoying your commentaries on many of these mystery series films.  Bringing back memories of flicks viewed years and even decades back.  Also you're hitting on a few I've never gotten around to seeing yet (such as those Ian Richardson Holmes films).

My favorite Bulldog Drummond film, of those I've seen (and there are several I've never seen) is, by far, Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back-1934-with Ronald Colman.  It's better budgeted than most of the films in the series and Colman is just perfect in it.  I last saw it about ten years ago and can't remember a lot of the specifics but can remember how I enjoyed its fast pacing and sense of humor.   Colman also has a great supporting cast in it-Loretta Young. C. Aubrey Smith, Una Merkel and Warner Oland (taking a break from his Charlie Chan series and returning to his former villain type roles (most notably as Fu Manchu).

Best

Joe

[paw broon]

Just to let the Doctor Who fans here know that Nicholas Courtney (The Brigadier) has died.
http://quadradinhos.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

[josemas]

Some recent Movie Night viewings.

We've had a boat load of early short films rolling in lately

Galloping Bungalows-1925-Sennett-Pathe-2 rls-   C:Billy Bevan, Andy Clyde, Jack Richardson, Sunshine Hart, Alma Bennett.    None of us had ever seen this Sennett film so we were pleasantly surprised to find it had a wild chase sequence in it worthy of being included in any of the many compilations of silent comedy car chases that have been assembled over the years.

The Hazards of Helen-Chapter 21-"A Life in the Balance"-1915-Kalem-2 rls-  The film chapterplay was still establishing its format in 1914 when The Hazards of Helen serial/series was launched.  It ran for for an astounding 119 episodes/chapters from 1914-1917.  Helen Holmes starred in the first 48 episodes and was replaced by Helen Gibson for the remainder.  

The Switch Tower-1912-Biograph-1 rl- famed director D. W. Griffith continues his work refining the language of film during its early days with this railroad drama involving a group of counterfeiters.

Milk the Baby-1938-Terry-  Very few of the many hundreds of animated cartoons that Paul Terry produced during the Golden Age of animated theatrical cartoons are ever seen today.  A few PD toons of his later, better known series characters such as Mighty Mouse and Heckle and Jeckle show up on budget DVDs but that is about it.  This one is really nothing special but it does have some spot on caricatures of Hollywood celebs Edna May Oliver and W. C. Fields enlivening up the works.

Mabels Stratagem-1913-Keystone-1 rl, Won By a Fowl-1917-Keystone-Triangle-2 rls-, Cursed By His Beauty-1914-Keystone-1 rl-, Hard Cider-1914-Keystone-1 rl, His Second Childhood-1914-Keystone-1 rl,-  A slew of Keystone comedies ranging from rural, alcohol themed hi-jinks to suspected infidelity with the ice-man.  Plenty of butt gags (Walt Disney must have ate these up when he was young).

Ups and Downs-1911-Vitagraph-1 rl-, Bunny Dips in Society-1913-Vitagraph-1 rl-  Popular comedian John Bunny stars in both of these.  In the former, which is mostly a drama with some humorous bits, he plays the father of a daughter who has trouble adjusting to married life and a downshift in lifestyle.   In the later he plays a character that could easily have been a model for George McManus's Jiggs in the Bringing Up Father comic strip which debuted around this time.

Motor Boat Mamas-1928-Sennett-Pathe- 2rls-  Lots of comedians, bathing beauties, chases and slapstick.

plus several unidentified film clips from some of comedian Harold Lloyd's Lonesome Luke films.

3 more episodes of The Spider Returns- I loved the chapter 5 cliffhanger which has the Spider about to be dropped into a fiery pit as the floor of the room he is in begins to swing down under him!

Firing Line-1967-  In this episode host William F. Buckley and his guest comedian Groucho Marx (what an unlikely combo!) tackle the subject "Is the World Funny?"  

J. L. Baird's Phonovsion-2004-   John Logie Baird was one of the pioneers of television in Britain. Some of the signals from his broadcasts from the 1920s and 30s were captured on records but until someone came up with the idea of feeding and translating the signals on those records through a computer there was no way of viewing them.  Now there is.  What we watched was a short documentary on Baird and his work, the surviving broadcasts that have been found and transferred, plus a recreation of his system that was broadcast in 1967.  We, unfortunately, watched them on a big screen TV which considering that they were only originally broadcast with a 30 lpi signal and designed to be watched on a really tiny screen, meant that they looked terrible on that huge big screen.  Oh well.

Captain Kangaroo-(a partial episode)-1962-one of the best known shows for generations of American kids this ran mornings on CBS from the 1950s into the 1990s.  This particular episode has the Captain interacting with his cohorts Mr. Green Jeans and Bunny Rabbit, welcoming a former vaudevillian guest star (who plays a variety of odd musical instruments) and introducing a Terry Toon starring Lariat Sam.  Boy did this bring back memories!

On DVD

Murder in the Museum-1934-Willis Kent-  a really low budget murder mystery starring Henry Walthall (who's starring roles were a good decade behind him).  So-so at best.

Death on the Nile-1978-  The prof praised this one recently and since its been sitting in my "to be watched" pile for ages I moved it right up to the top. The wife and I re-watched Murder on the Orient Express last year and found this All-Star follow up, which neither of us had ever seen before, equally enjoyable.  The DVD also had an vintage "Making of" documentary included which gave insight into the filming process.   Recommended.

The Name of the Rose-1986-  Another murder mystery.  This one set in the 14th century and starring Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham and a very young teen-aged Christian Slater.  Very nice atmosphere and art direction as Connery investigates a series of murders in an abbey that has him walking a thin line between truly solving the crimes and angering the Papal investigators looking for a more supernatural reason.   Many of the supporting actors were excellently chosen, primarily for their looks, from among various European countries (the film was shot both in a real 14th century abbey in West Germany and on sets in Italy).   The DVD also included a vintage West German documentary about translating the book to the screen as well as a new interview with the director.   Recommended.

Cosmo Jones in Crime Smashers-1943-Monogram   A moderately amusing low budget comedy-mystery. Frank Graham (sort of a Wally Cox type), repeating his lead role from the CBS radio series The Adventures of Cosmo Jones (which was still running when this film was shot) was best known for his work in radio and for providing voices in many Golden Age animated cartoons.  The film is also enlivened by the supporting comic antics of Edgar "Slow Burn" Kennedy and Mantan Moreland (Birmingham Brown from the Charlie Chan series).  Gale Storm provides some feminine beauty to the proceedings.

At the Movies

I usually get out to the theaters two-three times per month but for various reasons have only gotten out once since early December.

True Grit-2010-   Really, really enjoyed this one.  Everything about it is good.  The acting, direction, locations.   It's been four decades since I both read the novel (although I do plan on going back and rereading it soon) and saw the original movie so my memory of both of those, which I enjoyed at the time, is very dim although I'm sensing that this movie version is a bit more faithful to the book than the original.  Recommended.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

Prof,  I'm really enjoying your commentaries on many of these mystery series films.  Bringing back memories of flicks viewed years and even decades back.

What amazes me in the number of instances where I find myself enjoying these things MUCH more than I had before. Maybe it's my state of mind, maybe it's a greater awareness of certain actors and what else they did (I love the IMDB!).

I looked up Margaret Leighton (who played Sgt. Smith) and found I had seen her in 3 other things, but ALL near the end of her career. She was in SPACE:1999 ("Collission Course"), which was awful (aren't they all?), FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (saw this again 2 years ago, MUCH worse than I remembered it), and FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE (fabulous film, one of Amicus' best anthologiues, she played the spiritualist who tries to get rid of an invisible monster-- the whole sequence was played for laughs).


I'd actually forgtoeen somehow that Robert Beatty (the film's villain who at times looked almost too young to recognize) was in WHERE EAGLES DARE, which I just watched again a month ago! He's the actor who impersonates a general and is allowed to be kidnapped, as part of an insanely-complex scheme to ferret out traitors in Whitehall. My favorite Richard Burton film, which, it turns out, HE was partly responsible for. When asked what kind of film he'd LIKE to make, he detailed a list of suggestions, which somehow found its way to Alistair MacLean, who produced a brand-new script in under 2 weeks. And here, I'd always thought it was based on a novel-- not the other way around! (There is actually a website dedicated just to that one film, which is SO complex & in-depth I couldn't believe what I'd found. Nice to know it's got lots of fans.)



I have seen some other BULLDOG DRUMMOND films, including the 1st one with Ronald Colman. Joan Bennett's the heroine in that, almost unrecognizable, she's so young! His sidekick "Algie" in that one (I forget the actor's name) reminds me a lot of "C-3PO", if you know what I mean. I've also seen BULLDOG DRUMMOND ESCAPES, which was my first glimpse of Ray Milland as a young and dashing action hero. He was replaced in the sequels, which were okay. had a really bad signal on the tv station that ran those, and wound up decided to wipe my tapes. One of these days I must seek out these things on DVD. (Yeah, one of these years...)  Next up will be DEADLIER THAN  THE MALE, the mid-60's film with Richard Johnson (who I just saw as Watson in THE CRUCIFER OF BLOOD). I recall it being somewhat of a "spy" movie, but that's no big stretch, considering THE LONE WOLF and THE SAINT often did favors for the Secret Service. (Templar was usually recruited at the airport on his way out of the country to go on vacation, and had to postpone his fun for a different sort of "fun".)

[profh0011]

MONSTROUS incompetence!  UNFORGIVEABLE incompetence!!!!!


Yes... tonight I watched the JEREMY BRETT version of "HOUND".


Good God. It keeps getting worse. Watching it back-to-back with Ian Richardson's, I can see not only what they changed in the Richardson version (his veered from the book, JUST like Rathbone, JUST like Cushing), but also, sadly, tragically... that EVERY-- SINGLE-- CAMERA SHOT-- in the Brett version was VASTLY inferior to EVERY-- SINGLE-- CAMERA SHOT in the Richardson version.


Amazing, isn't it? 3 very different versions, all veered from the bnook in different ways (Cushing's more than the others by far). And all 3 wound up being FANTASTIC movies.  Brett's hones to the book closer than any other version ever done... and it's a piece of S***!!! (This hurts even more when you remember that the first 2 full seasons of Brett were as near to perfection as TV had ever, ever seen at the time.)




Minor details... the litigious "Mr. Franklin" was in the Rathbone version.  "Laura Lyons" (the failed painter's wife) was in the Richardson verion.  BOTH are in Brett's (AND Tom Baker's). Which makes sense... because they're father and daughter.


Among other crimes against "mystery", the Brett version-- and presumably, THE BOOK!!!-- reveal way too much to the audience way too early. So there's hardly any suspense or surprise at the end. The climax of the Brett film doesn't happen... it just sort of... "is". You're not thrilled, you're not surprised, you're just... letft shaking your head in dismay. this is followed by an awkward, stammering epilogue that borders on the amateur... and finished with a parting moment that anyone in their right mind would have cut from the film. There's so much DEAD SILENCE in this, as if long, meaningful stares or slow, panning shots over EMPTY countryside is supposed to make the story seem profound. Nope.  Just boring.



Well, I'm planning to watch TOM BAKER tomorrow night. Almost the same script, and even less money, but STILL a better finished product. This, despite an AWFUL Watson and a Henry Baskerville 6 inches shorter than he should be.  (HAH!!!) But at least Laura Lyons is played by Caroline John, one of my all-time fave WHO girls.


Hey, that reminds me.  In the Brett film, possibly the BEST guest-actor is the guy who played Franklin-- Bernard Horsfall! WHAT A VOICE! He was in 3 different DOCTOR WHOs over the years, plus ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.


After Baker, I may well pull out Rathbone again. Even though I only watched it a couple months ago. It's THAT good. Why not?



there is ONE strange thing about the Rathbone version... and it's not the infamous reference to "the needle". (An aside-- is it REALLY cocaine they're referring to in a 1939 production code-era movie??? Couldn't it REALLY be that "the needle" in question was EVIDENCE in a crime because it's what Stapleton tried to use to MURDER Sir Henry, when the dog failed?) Here it is-- Sir Henry gets engaged to marry Beryl Stapleton.  Jack's sister. Well, Jack turns out to be a Baskerville.  In most versions, Beryl is really Jack's WIFE. But they never mention that in the Rathbone version. Since they DON'T mention it, coupled with the whole way Beryl (Wendy Barrie) seems so innocent of anything going on, it seems in this version she really IS Jack's sister.  Well... if she's Jack's sister, doesn't that make HER a Baskerville, too? What's that about marrying your cousin??

[josemas]

I have seen some other BULLDOG DRUMMOND films, including the 1st one with Ronald Colman. Joan Bennett's the heroine in that, almost unrecognizable, she's so young! His sidekick "Algie" in that one (I forget the actor's name) reminds me a lot of "C-3PO", if you know what I mean. I've also seen BULLDOG DRUMMOND ESCAPES, which was my first glimpse of Ray Milland as a young and dashing action hero. He was replaced in the sequels, which were okay. had a really bad signal on the tv station that ran those, and wound up decided to wipe my tapes. One of these days I must seek out these things on DVD. (Yeah, one of these years...) 

Just watched Joan Bennett's father, Richard Bennett, in one of those Keystone comedies I mentioned in my previous post-Cursed By His Beauty (1914).  Bennett's daughters Joan, Constance and Barbara all made occasional appearances in their father's films.  All three daughters went on to appear in films as adults with both Constance and Joan (some may remember her from Dark Shadows late in her career) having quite lengthy careers. Their sister Barbara's film career was shorter but her son, Morton Downey, Jr., made it into show business.

Colman's first Bulldog Drummond film doesn't come close to his second.  BD Strkes Back is so much better on almost every level.   If you ever get a chance to see it don't pass it up.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

Been hearing good things about that sequel. I may have only seen the 1st one once (twice at most) and it's been a long time since either way. My main memory was it felt VERY primitive, barely past a silent film, and the acting didn't impress me much.  It must have been at least a decade later (maybe more) before Ronald Colman suddenly became one of my favorite actors, and everything I've seen him in over the last decade has been fabulous.  RANDOM HARVEST, PRISONER OF ZENDA, etc. (I watched the DOCTOR WHO take-off on ZENDA maybe 10 times over the years without ever once seeing the original. Later that month, TCM was running the Stewart Granger version, but having just seen Colman, I gave it a pass. Wish I had seen it, just out of curiosity, but I've been disappointed by too many remakes.)

It floored me when I realized that Dr. Strange (for most of Ditko's run) was a dead ringer for Colman. See LOST HORIZON.  In that film, "The ancient one" isn't Chinese-- he's Jewish! (The earlier, cruder episodes, Doc was Vincent Price! That just has to indicate influence of the film THE RAVEN, doesn't it?)

[profh0011]

Tonight:

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES  (1982)


Yes-- one year before Sy Weintraub mounted his epic, big-budget all-star cast "Hollywood" style version with Ian Richardson, BARRY LETTS did his BBC shoestring budget videotape version-- with Tom Baker.


But it's not fair to compare THOSE two, even though they're so much alike and yet so different.  No, what's fair is to compare this with Granada's version with Jeremy Brett.  Because these two ARE SOOOO similar.  And yet... I can attest that EVERY scene in the Baker version is SUPERIOR.  More ENERGY! More CLARITY! More TENSION! And more DIALOGUE. In many scenes, the exact same words are spoken, which tells me both versions did follow the book, but there's just MORE in this one. In fact, there's so much more, it seems Tom Baker was running off at the mouth at high speed just to fit it all in! NO dead air-- NO long, boring silences.  This thing MOVES like lightning!



I take it back.  THIS is the MOST FAITHFUL version. I know, I really should actually READ the blasted book to be absolutely sure, but from closely comparing the versions, my instincts tell me this is probably the closest we'll ever see (unless someone ever decides to do a 3-hour version...).


In his autobiography (one of the most disturbing books I have ever read in my life), Tom Baker said he felt he was terrible in this part. I disagree. He may not LOOK like Holmes, but he FEELS like Holmes. And he is, by far, the BEST thing about this version, after the script itself.  Although he didn't write it, when "script editor" Terrence Dicks' name came up in the end credits, I APPLAUDED. DAMN, this is GOOD!!!