Comic Book Plus Forum
All And Everything => Watcha ... ? => Topic started by: profh0011 on April 12, 2022, 02:23:07 AM
-
THE SPECKLED BAND
(Grant-Realm Productions / Jerry Fairbanks Productions / Michael Grant Productions Ltd. / Realm Television Productions / National Broadcasting Company / ?Your Show Time? TV film / US / 1949)
This apparently started life as an unsold TV pilot, the first of multiple such films in the late 40s-early 50s. It was aired as an episode of the anthology series, "Your Show Time", hosted by "The Old Bookseller", alias Arthur Shields (lookalike brother of Barry Fitzgerald).
On a very limited budget it tells what one reviewer called a "bare-bones" adaptation of perhaps Doyle's most famous story. Holmes is played by Alan Napier, 17 years before he gained immortality as Alfred the butler on BATMAN. Watson is played a bit dimly by Melville Cooper, perhaps most memorable as The Sheriff of Nottingham in the classic film THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1939). The intended victim, Helen Stoner, is played by Evelyn Ankers, while her stepfather, Dr. Grimsby Roylott, is played rather indifferently by Edgar Barrier. I found it interesting that both these actors had previously been in SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1943), she as Kitty, virtually the heroine of the piece, and he as the unseen "voice of terror".
While pretty much all of the original dialogue and half the story has been stripped away in this version, oddly enough a brand-new red herring was added in the form of Helen's fiance, John Armitage (played by Richard Fraser), who bullheadedly demands to know who these 2 strangers are who claim to be helping his bride-to-be. The one amusing moment in the episode is when, for the sake of expedience, Watson clobbers him from behind, then ties him up to keep him out of the way.
Another familiar name that cropped up was director Sobey Martin. Checking his resume, I found he did no less than 14 episodes apiece of Irwin Allen's VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, LOST IN SPACE, and THE TIME TUNNEL, plus 21 episodes of LAND OF THE GIANTS before he retired! That might just make him the most prolific director to have worked for Hollywood's "master of disaster".
I found it somehow perversely appropriate that a Sherlock Holmes story should be sponsored by a tobacco company, Lucky Strike, and during the narrative parts, Arthur Shields looked like he was planning to smoke himself into an early grave. In point of fact, he died of emphysema. (OY!)
Arthur Shields
(https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/images/2/2d/1949-spec-napier-bookshop-man.jpg)
Alan Napier
(https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/images/8/88/1949-spec-napier-holmes.jpg)
Melville Cooper
(https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/images/b/b4/1949-spec-napier-watson.jpg)
Evelyn Ankers
(https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/images/a/a2/1949-spec-napier-helen-stoner.jpg)
Edgar Barrier
(https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/images/3/34/1949-spec-napier-roylott.jpg)
-
Looking to see if I could find a copy of this,
I found this one.
The speckled band 1931 full film with Raymond Massey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwMpJ8_wpr8
and a good print of this Arthur Wontner) movie.
Sherlock Holmes Movies | Murder at the Baskervilles | Full movie | USA, 1937
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npmZwr1hPp0
Cheers!
-
Purists would B*** about both films for adding details that weren't in the originals. I love both films, and just DEARLY WISH somebody would do extensive restorations on both of them.
THE SPECKLED BAND with Raymond Massey is based on a stage play, and so has several extra characters not in the original short story. Tragically, it's also been cut to ribbons, with maybe 20 MINUTES missing from every available print. Apparently, nobody's seen the intact film in my lifetime, so it's impossible to know exactly what's missing, but it's been suggested a whole sub-plot involving the gypsies may be among the currently-lost footage. One of my favorite bits is when Watson arrives at Stoke Moran, wonders where Holmes is, and finds he's been there for hours, posing as a construction worker, and confirms the work being done on Helen Stoner's room is utterly uncalled for.
When SILVER BLAZE (1937) got to America under the title MURDER AT THE BASKERVILLES in 1941, 6 minutes was cut from it!! At the moment, I have 2 DVDs of it, one a US print, the other a UK print. The UK print seems to be missing about 1-1/2 minutes. (I timed both with my stopwatch!) Both copies are missing different things, crazy enough, and one is way too dark, the other way too bright and washed out in spots. I have a strong suspicion that if I were to get myself a video editing program, I could combine the best parts of both discs and create a better version than either.
Damn, I wish somebody would find decent prints of all the 5 Wontner films (1 entire film is missing!) and do extensive restorations.
By the way, Lyn Harding makes his 2nd appearance as Moriarty, and at the beginning of the film you can see he's pissed off at Holmes for almost getting killed at the end of the previous movie (THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1935), loosely adapted from "The Valley of Fear"). It's a funny thing, but the climax of TRIUMPH was swiped 4 years later for the climax of THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, while the climax of SILVER BLAZE was swiped for the climax of SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON!
TRIUMPH / ADVENTURES both end with a chase in a stone tower with Moriarty plunging off the roof. In TRIUMPH, it's into the moat surrounding the castle, so we can figure he swam to safety, and was picked up by Moran, who we know was waiting in the car. With SILVER / SECRET, it's a hunt to find Moriarty's hidden lair, which contains a sliding wall panel, AND, a deep pit he hopes Watson or Holmes will be sent plunging down.
When you watch all of these in sequence (as I now have!) you really begin to notice stuff like this.
-
I've been meaning to take a stab at these for the last 2 years. Now that I'm about to put the box set on the shelf for a good long rest, I figured I better get the last few films out of the way...
PURSUIT TO ALGIERS
(Universal / US / 1945)
Protecting The King
Our heroes are detoured from a vacation to protect the son of a recently-murdered king of a tiny European country. What follows could be described as the strangest episode of "THE LOVE BOAT" ever set on film (heh). We have a whole shopping list of possible suspects, some likable characters, some very annoying, and some downright sinister. Watson gets to be excessively-annoyed, the center of atention, he gets to sing and tell stories. Holmes gets to be serious, devious, clever, and for once show a rare warmth toward a woman who was worried the police were after her. (In "Doctor Who" terms, he was more "Jon Pertwee" on this occasion than "Tom Baker".)
As usual, several members of the Universal "stock company" show up. It still blows my mind that for so many years, I never noticed so many actors were appearing in film after film, always playing different parts. This time around we have Olaf Hytten (a tiny cameo as a shop owner), Morton Lowry (the steward), Gerald Hamer (half of a suspicious pair who turn out to be archeologists), and Frederick Worlock (The Prime Minister!). Also in the cast is perrennial baddie Martin Kosleck (THE MUMMY'S CURSE) and character actor John Abbott (THE SAINT IN LONDON, STAR TREK and LOST IN SPACE).
The Rathbone films liked to mix in bits of various Arthur Conan Doyle stories. Here, several reviewers pointed out this story contained a few characters & incidents from "The Red Circle", though all I can see is a planned assassination. Watson tells the story of "The Giant Rat Of Sumatra", a never-told story mentioned in "The Sussex Vampire". Holmes faking his own death and returning from same to Watson's shock is yet another use of "The Final Problem" and "The Empty House".
But there's one more thing that somehow never even occured to me until I sat down to write this review. I've already seen 3 earlier Holmes films referenced in the Rathbone series (SHERLOCK HOLMES, THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and SILVER BLAZE, from 1932, 1935 & 1937 respectively). But even while watching PURSUIT TO ALGIERS on DVD for the 3rd time in under 2 years, it wasn't until today I suddenly realized a major part of the plot came from a 1932 film-- from Czechoslovakia. It's Holmes finding someone to impersonate the king of a tiny country that's at the center of LELICEK IN THE SERVICES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, with Martin Fric as Holmes and comic actor Vlasta Burian as both the King and his imposter. Of the two, I find the comedy the far-more-entertaining film, and highly reccomend everyone check it out (and compare it with this one). Of course, in this, you don't find out there is an imposter until the very last scene!
-
A Study in Terror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOr6RMeDqr4
John Neville as Sherlock Holmes
Donald Houston as Doctor Watson
Frank Finlay as Inspector Lestrade
Robert Morley as Mycroft
and a very high-powered cast.
-
Having already noticed several of the Rathbone films swiped from earlier films, the other week I ran across one more I was never aware of!
THE GARDEN MURDER CASE -- THE WOMAN IN GREEN
Both involve hypnotists who at the climax try to get the hero to step off a tall building. How many times have I seen the Rathbone film, never suspecting they were borrowing from a 9-year-old Philo Vance film?
-
Well, as of tonight, my current SHERLOCK HOLMES marathon has finally reached what I would call "The Modern Era"-- namely, 1959!
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES
(Hammer Films / United Artists / 1959)
My first exposure to Holmes was "THE HOUSE OF FEAR" with Basil Rathbone. But it turned out (I didn't realize this for some years), Rathbone's "HOUND" was yanked from circulation for about 20 years... because of THIS movie. The Hammer film, run on the very same Saturday that ABC ran their unsold pilot with Stewart Granger, was my 1st exposure to the story, when Peter Cushing became only the 2nd actor I'd ever seen playing the part.
Ever since the early 80s, I've been putting up with a horrible VHS copy I recorded off the local UHF station channel 17, with a faded print, BAD antenna signal, choppy editing at the commercial breaks, and I think, part of one scene outright missing. It was still one of my favorites for a long time... at least, until I started really seeing so many other versions of the story, just about all of them at least somewhat more faithful to the story, and 3 of them VERY faithful (although the most popular of those is one I find almost-unwatchable for a variety of reasons). And lately, some of the really old, rare foreign versions, some recently rediscovered & restored, have become HUGE favorites. So it began to really bug me whan I kept seeing so many people INSISTING that the 1959 was the "best" version of HOUND, or even, the "best" Holmes film ever made. NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! Even so, I've been looking forward to getting a "decent" version for quite a while, and I'm thrilled to finally have one... even if I wound up OVER-PAYING because the Blu-Ray was a 3000-copy limited edition from a company that, I just found out minutes ago, went out of business 2 YEARS ago.
Imagine-- tonight was the first time I EVER saw this film in WIDESCREEN!!! And, a crystal-clear UNCUT copy of it, too! On that score alone, this blows Warner Archive's "HORROR OF DRACULA" disc completely out of the water. It really struck me, watching this, that the stunning, gorgeous color scheme in most of this reminds me of a classic DISNEY film from the same period. It looks THAT DAMNED GOOD.
There remains the almost amusing irony that while Hammer's "HOUND" may be one of the MOST-authentic classic adaptations they ever did (their version of "Carmilla" is far more so), it is currently to my eyes about the 2nd-LEAST-authentic version I've seen (that outragious honor goes to the 1914, an absolutely FUN film that has to be seen to be believed)
I'd say the first half of the film does a heck of a job trying to COMPRESS a really complicated mystery story into a very short space of time, but the last act goes COMPLETELY off the rails, totally SCREWING with the original story in so many ways it's probably best not trying to list them all. Essentially, Hammer was far more interested doing a "Hammer" film, than they were, a "Holmes" film.
This goes even to Peter Cushing, who in recent times I discovered played a MUCH nicer, more authentic Holmes in the 1968 BBC TV series (the one where the Beeb was monstrously-stupid enough to WIPE 2/3rds of the episodes from existence-- those bastards!). And yes, I do find it amusing that Cushng did the "HOUND" a 2nd time, for that TV series, and I've come to prefer that over this one.
For interesting comparison, see the 1929 and 1937 German versions, which both seem to have FAR more in common with this film than the "classic" Fox version from 1939, which despite its production values somehow managed to leave out AT LEAST HALF of the book (as compare to this one, which left out about two-thirds of the book).
One bit I could not help note was that scene with the tarantula. It seems to have stepped right out of Ian Fleming's "Dr. No", a story he wrote in part to give his cousin Christopher Lee a starring role as the Oriental VILLAIN. But given that Lee's real-life wartime exploits were one of the things that actually inspired the character of James Bond, I can't help but see this scene as being Lee DOING Bond, 3 years before EON Productions did, starting with "DR. NO". In fact, I don't think Ive ever seen Lee in any role where he reminded me SO MUCH of Fleming's version of Bond, personality-wise. The bit about smashing the spider on the floor was very CLOSE to the scene where Sean Connery did the same thing with a tarantula in the 1962 movie, down to the number of times the critter was hit. (It was a giant centipede in Fleming's book.)
With this in mind, I couldn't help but picture how different things might have gone, if Lee had been cast as Bond instead of Connery (they both played baddies in their time). And watching this film, I could suddenly also easily imagine Andre Morell as "M"... and Peter Cushing as "Q". Had things really gone different, and the film series had been able to start with the 1st novel... Peter Lorre, who was STILL around at this time, would have been perfect as the 1st story's main villain, "Le Chiffre", who he played to such perfection in the 1954 TV adaptation of "CASINO ROYALE".
With my mind on a roll like this, I began to wonder about the other characters. Clearly, Ed Bishop would have been a perfect Felix Leiter (or, David Hedison if they could have gotten him-- heh). I'd have gone with Belgian actor Eugene Deckers as French agent Rene Mathis. And I think... Eunice Gayson as Vesper Lynd. (Hey, why not?)
I've got another Terence Fisher film en route as I type this. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to watch that one NEXT Monday. 🙂
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*qMdNCvSiapCYTHfN.png)
-
Tonight (just 2 nights later), I decided to watch the first of 2 audio commentary tracks. This was by David Del Valle & Steven Peros, one of whom is apparently a member of the infamous "Hammer Lovers" FB group (!!).
What struck me as odd was, one or both of them KEPT stuttering as they talked, and there were long gaps in different places, as if they hadn't prepared for doing it. The other was, when discussing the film, and the novel, and other versions, there were certain references they made that gave me the impression that I knew more about the story, inside-and-out, than THEY did!! A case in point, they seemed to be havbing trouble remembering some of the relationships in the book (which were completely altered or left out of the movie), such as that of Jack (never mentioned by his first name in the movie) and Beryl (who became "Cecile" in the film), or Laura Lyons, who was in fact Frankland's DISOWNED daughter!
I enjoy comparing the changes in various film adaptations, but it really seemed to me they hadn';t seen nearly as many versions as I had, or, they just hadn't been paying attention.
Does anybody else here have this copy of this movie?
By the way, I noticed on Monday night a few of the "redressed" sets. The stairway and 2nd-floor balcony may have come from "DRACULA", but with the stair now on the other end of the balcony, but the position of the stair,m and the fact that it has a 90 degree turn at the bottom, was REUSED, with much more ornamentation added, in "BRIDES OF DRACULA".
Also-- those very odd, delicate, ornate "arches" in the entry hall in "DRACULA", turned up-- almost completely covered in dirt & rocks-- in the abandoned church at the climax of "HOUND".
One peculiar thing, when Holmes reveals himself to Watson at the church, there's a momtn where he half-starts climbing a ladder. And I found myself wondering, WHAT is that ladder doing there? The funny thing is, in the 1937 German "HOUND", when Watson & Sir Henry find Holmes' hiding place, it's in a cave reached by climbing DOWN a ladder. It would seem to me the ladder was suggested by the one in the German film!
The commentators also noted there is no "underground mine" in the book. BUT, there is a whole series of underground tunnels in ther 1929 German "HOUND", and in there, the tunnel connects to directly to Baskerville Hall. In the last couple years, I'm seeing a LOT of influence of those German films in this one. Funny enough, there's also a huge underground tunnel in the 1962 INDIAN version of "HOUND", and the climactic chase, in that tunnel, looks like it was inspired by the climax of "THE THIRD MAN". I love noticing stuff like that.
-
Tonight's film:
SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DEADLY NECKLACE
(West Germany - France - Italy / 1962)
I heard about this for decades, finally saw it on Youtube a year or so back, and frankly, ENJOYED it. I guess going in knowing its problems & limitations in advanced helped avoid any major disappointments. I can safely say this is a FUN crime film, and judging by multiple reviews I've read, is apparently more in line with the then-popular "krimi" genre of German films (something I rather suspected tonight) than a "genuine" Holmes film.
Rather like the early-30s Universal horrors, this film seems to exist in NO specific era, and appears even more out of time than the 12 Universal HOLMES films with Basil Rathbone. Then there's the business about Professor Moriarty being a well-known, respected expert on archeology (rather than a professor of mathematics), who the police refuse to believe is a criminal, while those same police insanely insist that unless they specifically ask for his help on cases, that Holmes should stay out of their way or they'll consider him to be "interfering" with their investigations. NONE of this is accurate to Doyle... but then, neither was Johnny Weismuller accurate to Burroughs...
And then there's the MAIN point of contention. You had 3 separate European production companies, none of whom could seem to agree on anything, who insisted on constantly re-writing the story, but, far worse, who somehow bungled it badly by FAILING to get Christopher Lee and Thorley Walters to dub their own voices! CRIMINAL!!
Well, having just watched the brand-new Severin Films BLU-RAY, and by accident watching the GERMANY version with English subtitles, I can attest... this dubbing problem exists on the GERMAN version as well!!! Though I believe the choice of actors ISN'T nearly as bad as it is on the ENGLISH dub. Go figure.
The good points: this is the FIRST time the film has ever been commercially available in a WIDESCREEN print, which is UNCUT and CRYSTAL-CLEAR in both picture and sound! Damn, that kind of thing really goes a long way. The photography in this film is GORGEOUS, even if the directing is only average. And people who insist that Thorley Walters was channeling Nigel Bruce might do well to watch the German dub, as he's no more dim in this than Nigel Stock is in the 1965 and 1968 BBC tv series.
I enjoyed the scene in the pub where a barmaid tries to con Watson into buying her a drink, and maybe even helping pay for her mother's alleged operation. Watson's no fool, and has fun pulling HER leg, especially when he offers to "help" by performing the operation himself for free!
Christopher Lee is a joy to watch in this, as at times he seems to have as much enthusiasm as Holmes as either Ronald Howard, Christopher Plummer or Ian Richardson did.
Hans Sohnker as Moriarty is also a class act. One of my favorite scenes has to be when he meets Holmes on a bench at night and offers him a steady salary and percentage of future takes, suggesting they're wasting their time & talent fighting each other. I don't think I've ever seen that in any other Holmes story.
A surprise was the sequence in the middle where a man, hiding from criminals, winds up killing his own would-be murderer, then trying to fake his own death, a scenario straight out of "The Valley Of Fear". From what I've read, apparently the original intention of this film was to do an adaptation of that story, but incessant rewrites reduced it to just this one small part. It makes me wonder if "Valley" might have been what Hammer had in mind for a 2nd Holmes film, if "HOUND" hadn't somehow bombed at the box office.
What's also curious is how, when Moriarty just walks away at the end (Holmes does suggest having his entire gang in custody may lead Moriarty to be in the dock before long), Holmes mentions to Watson that Jack The Ripper has just killed again. Which make it seem like this film leads directly into "A STUDY IN TERROR", which was made 3 years later by entirely-different hands. As it happens, that's the NEXT Holmes film I plan to be buying.
The Severin disc is not only PRISTENE and as perfect as could be for a film with such an unfortunate reputation, it's also got an audio commentary in addition to being in 2 different languages, and, an interview with Lee! Without doubt, I'll be watching this at least 3 times before I put it up on the shelf.
Since not one person at the IMDB mentioned it, I might as well. Around 30 years later, Lee recorded a whole series of Holmes "books-on-tapes", which included "The Valley of Fear". I found that on cassette back in the 90s, and was blown away at how Lee performed EVERY voice in the story. If you didn't know, you might never guess that ALL the voices were his! What a talent he was.
(https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F4%2F8%2F4%2F9%2F14849283%5D%2Csizedata%5B850x600%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D)
-
Tonight I played the "extras" on the "HOUND" disc.
The interview with the nice lady who made the dog mask was sweet, but I wound up wishing they'd gotten to her 10 or 20 years earlier. Oh well.
THE highlight was Lee reading excerpts of the novel. I especially loved the opening sequence. I have never read the book (I REALLY must do so some day), but I feel at times that I have, since certain bits of dialogue have appeared VERBATIM in multiple films, and when that happens, I've felt they must be staying true to the novel. There's NONE of this in the Hammer film-- NOT ONE BIT!!!!!
I know that Lee read multiple books-on-tape of the Holmes stories, and if he did "HOUND" as he did "THE VALLEY OF FEAR", I must search it out.
Finally, I watched the trailer again. AHA!!! I thought so!!! This is at least the 2nd classic Hammer film where there is a bit in the trailer that was CUT from the finished film!!!
In "DRACULA", it's the bit at the climax where Dracula RUNS across the room to grab Van Helsing by the throat. In the finished film, he seems to leap in an instant across the room, and get his hands on the hero without even crossing the floor.
In "HOUND", watching it 3 times in the last week, it struck me that you DIDN'T see Cecile fall into the mire. She was running. Cut to Holmes & Watson atop the rocks. Cut to Cecile, IN the mire. But in the trailer, there's maybe ONE second where you SEE her fall in!!! WHY would they CUT such a thing? I thnk somebody just got a little over-zealous there.
-
Just watched "...THE DEADLY NECKLACE" with the audio commentary. A pleasant surprise, I found this much better and far-more informed than either of the 2 commentary tracks on the Hammer "HOUND" disc. For one thing, the 2 people discussing the film appeared to know about far more versions of Holmes in films over the decades than most, as they brought up at various times William Gillette, Ellie Norwoord, Arthur Wontner, John Neville, Christopher Plummer, and so on.
It seems the German producer was already doing a series of "Dr. Mabuse" films, and wanted to do a "Professor Moriarty" film or series to go with it. However, the Doyle Estate had ALREADY sold the film rights to "The Final Problem" and "The Empty House" to a company that was then doing a STAGE MUSICAL! Instead, they opted for "The Valley of Fear", as Moriarty appears in the background of that. They also very much wanted to set the story in contemporary times, but although NEARLY EVERY Holmes films to that point (with the exceptions of the 1916 SHERLOCK HOLMES, the first 2 Rathbonbe films and the Hammer one) had ALL been set in contemporary times, for whatever reason, the Estate people INSISTED it be done as a "period" piece, perhaps to follow up on the Hammer film. Somehow, the 1920s was a "compromise", althought as one looks deeply into it, the film really takes place in a "make-believe London" in the same way most of the Dr. Mabuse films do.
I hadn't realized that all the later stories Doyle wrote in the 1920s were set in the late 1800s, so he was already doing "period pieces" that far back.
They also noted how the 1960s seem to have been the last time that the focus was on the stories rather than the characters, and that this Holmes was a heroic character, rather than some kind of damaged sociopath. (I was reminded how the same thing has happened with BATMAN. I don't like how it happened in either case.)
Funny thing, while Moriarty walks away scot free at the end, the commentators mentioned it seemed he would get his hands on the stolen necklace AGAIN before long, while watching the film what I picked up on was Holmes' view that with Moriarty's gang in custody, he would be in the dock soon as well.
Something I suspected appears to have been true-- it seems they WERE hoping to do a Jack the Ripper film after this, but so many people were unhappy with the result, when it happened, it was entirely-different people involved!
As an aside, I JUST saw that the EUROCRYPT box set has SOLD OUT from Severin Films. Which makes me VERY glad I got my hands on it from them when I could, and, for such a terrific price. Now I gotta keep watching to see if the 2nd volume price drops, as I really want that one, also.
-
Just polished off the extras on the "...DEADLY NECKLACE" disc. Tony Dalton did an audio interview with Terrence Fisher, who sounded ill at the time. He also appeared in a video where he talked about Fisher's career, which was quite fascinating. This was as good or better than any of the Fisher-related things I've seen on various Hammer discs so far, and this wasn't a Hammer disc!
I'd also like to say the menu was well-designed, which not every disc I've seen has. It's nice and big, therefore readable (THE DEVIL RIDES OUT menu is so small you almost can't see what you're looking at), and each "extra", it goes to the next one after so you don't have to hit multiple buttons to go straight through.
The only down side, oddly enough, is the spine on the box. Someone made the mistake of using the same lettering font AND COLOR as seen on the original poster, and even with my reading glasses, I have trouble being able to read the title! Makes it difficult to see on the shelf among all my other HOLMES films. I'm so good at designing text on CD jewel cases, this is a beginner's mistake that I would never have made. Oh well...
-
DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE (1914)
What has LESS to do with the novel than the Hammer version? THIS one!
Here's the WHOLE movie! Enjoy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMhVAqef2nY
-
Just watched "...THE DEADLY NECKLACE" again, this time with the English soundtrack. As I suspected, the German dubbing was done much better for several of the actors. Far worse than either Christopher Lee or Thorley Walters, is the voice given to Leon Askin, which doesn't sound even remotely like his real voice!
But it turns out, this is not the only problem. While the picture on the Severin Films Blu-Ray is PRISTENE, CRYSTAL-CLEAR throughout... I'm afraid I can't say the same for the English soundtrack! There's a rough, harsh quality about it that suggests they weren't able to locate a decent source, and that it could really use some SOUND restoration. Things being what they are, I doubt we'll ever see that happen, and the 2021 disc will probably be the best we'll ever have.
Another odd thing... they changed the dialogue at the very end of the movie. In the English dub, Holmes suggests that Moriarty will probably be STEALING the necklace from the rich Texan who bought it at the auction. But this is not even suggested in the German dub. Instead, it's mentioned that Jack The Ripper has just murdered again, which suggests Holmes will be on HIS track very soon.
-
BEES SAAL BAAD (1962)
The Ghost Horror of Chandangarh ******* (of 10)
Handsome heir Kumar Vijay Singh inherits his family's mansion, and slowly finds romance with Rahda, who doesn't know what to make of him at first. But there's supposedly a curse on his family, as his grandfather committed an atrocity against a local girl, and every owner of the manor has died a horrible death since then. Is the supernatural involved, or just a murder-crazed madman?
If this all sounds familiar... IT IS! By my count, this is the 10th film adaptation of Doyle's "The Hound Of The Baskervilles", and, the 2nd made in INDIA! If you're the sort who finds fascination delving into what is, by American standards, a truly ALIEN culture and style, this may grab you as it did me. If not... best avoid it as if it were a silent film (you'll have to read subtitles in either case, heh).
This is a stunning, gorgeous, moody, and beautiful film. It's also one of the only times I can recall someone doing a romantic-musical-comedy-murder mystery-- with so much emphasis on the romance and the music, that at times you might forget about the murder plot. It's also hilarious to watch the girl, Rahda, as she can't decide whether to be annoyed with newcomer Kumar, or madly fall for him.
Other comedy is had in the form of detective Gopichand Jasoos, who shows up because the police are offering a huge reward for capturing the murderer. Actor Asit Sen reminds me a little of Avery Scheiber (of all people), and anyone complaining about how silly he gets at times forgets that in "Hound", the main focus is on DR. WATSON, not Holmes! (And YES, there IS a "Holmes"-- of sort-- in this version.)
We also get the sub-plot about the family servant signalling to an escaped convict, a local doctor, ANOTHER doctor who's Rahda's uncle, and a very suspicious character hobbling around on crutches who DOESN'T need them. I must admit, the first time I watched this movie, I was COMPLETELY faked out as to the identity of the murderer-- and the REAL detective-- by the way the characters were portrayed, and only at the end did I realize it should have been obvious all the time for anyone familiar with multiple film versions of the story. (The guy with the crutches, in fact, was a reference to a particular film version of "Hound"-- the one with Basil Rathbone!)
There's no "hound" in this version of the story at all, but plenty to hold your attention, which is good, as at 2 hours 38 minutes, this pretty much qualifies as an "epic". The climax appears to borrow from the long-lost 1929 German version of "HOUND", as it takes place in a series of underground tunnels, part of which are flooded with water. The way it's shot, however, reminds me more than anything of the climax of "THE THIRD MAN". I just love comparing different adaptations of the same stories.
I do wonder if this movie was shot in widescreen or not (if it was, the print I have is missing half the visual). I also wish someone would do a restoration of it, as it has inconsistent picture quality, lots of cuts & damage, one brief scene edited in twice by accident (!!), and, the print looks decades older than it is! (I just watched a 1916 film that looked newer than this one did, thanks to a 4K scan of its negative.)
Now if only I can find a copy of "JIGHANSA" (1951). The only online store that had a copy of that recently, the seller confirmed it was a Region 0 disc, and it had English subtitles... but, he DIDN'T ship to the USA. So close, and yet so far!
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmNlNmQxOGMtMGYyZC00YWU4LWEzY2MtZjU3M2VlZTc3YWQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjQ1MDcxNzM@._V1_.jpg)
-
The way it's shot, however, reminds me more than anything of the climax of "THE THIRD MAN".
Could that be why the guy on the poster resembles Orson Wells as Harry Lime?
Did this film use the following technique?
The Dutch angle, also known as Dutch tilt, canted angle, or oblique angle, is a type of camera shot which involves setting the camera at an angle on its roll axis so that the shot is composed with vertical lines at an angle to the side of the frame, or so that the horizon line of the shot is not parallel with the bottom of the camera frame.[1] This produces a viewpoint akin to tilting one's head to the side.[1] In cinematography, the Dutch angle is one of many cinematic techniques often used to portray psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed.
The Third Man is noted for using this technique to heighten suspense and show the discomfort of the characters.
-
Prof, thanks for telling us about these movies. They're all new to me. I'm intrigued.
-
It took a bit of effort, clocking in at more than 2 and a half hours, but I enjoyed it this 2nd time around, and this time, I wasn't out-faked by who were the "Holmes" and "Stapleton" characters (neither of which is really obvious, unless you know the story AND have seen the 1939 version--heh).
It seems Indian author Hemendra Kumar Roy wrote a novel based on "Hound", "Nishithini Bivishika". Last night, with more difficulty than usual, I was able to work out the translation for that, which was-- more or less-- "Ghost Horror". (Google Translate didn't wanna give me that, I had to go elsewhere.) In 1951 that novel was in turn adapted as "JIGHANSA" ("Bloodlust"), a Belgali film. 11 years later, that film was then remade (with a lot of music added) as "BEEL SAAL BAAD" ("Twenty Years Later"), a Hindi film.
Of course... "Twenty Years Later" is also the name of the 3rd "Three Musketeers" story-- the one adapted to film only once that I know of, as "THE RETURN OF THE MUSKETEERS", the one where, tragically, Roy Kinnear died in an accident while filming, which put a damper on the whole thing. Probably why nobody involved wanted to do the 4th story, "Ten Year Later"-- alias, "THE IRON MASK". Of course, that had already been filmed multiple times (as had the first 2 stories), the latest version that I know of being the one with Beau Bridges & Rex Harrison ("THE FIFTH MUSKETEER").
How's that for a wild ramble? ;D
Someone HAS posted "JIGHANSA" on Youtube-- but-- WITHOUT English subtitles!!! No, I'm not putting up with that...
-
Re
the three musketeers.
Wikipedia lists 3 adaptions by the BBC.
the one below is superb.
The Musketeers, a 2014 series by Adrian Hodges, is the newest BBC adaptation[10] starring Tom Burke, Santiago Cabrera, Howard Charles and Luke Pasqualino as the titular musketeers.
Also, Peter Capaldi is wonderful as the villain, Cardinal Richelieu!
I am absolutely sure that there would be Japanese adaptions.
Then there is the animation mother load.
Walt Disney Productions produced a Silly Symphony cartoon called, Three Blind Mouseketeers, which is loosely based on the novel in 1936, in which the characters are depicted as anthropomorphic animals.
A two-part adaptation aired on The Famous Adventures of Mr. Magoo, with Magoo portraying D'Artagnan.
The Three Musketeers was a series of animated shorts produced by Hanna-Barbera's as part of The Banana Splits Comedy-Adventure Hour and The Banana Splits & Friends show.
The Three Musketeers was a Hanna-Barbera animated special from 1973. It was part of the 1970s-80s CBS anthology series Famous Classic Tales that was produced by Hanna-Barbera's Australian division and often aired around the holidays between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day.
Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds is a 1981 Spanish?Japanese anime adaptation, where the characters are anthropomorphic dogs. A sequel, The Return of Dogtanian, was released in 1989 by BRB Internacional, Thames Television and Wang Film Productions. Set 10 years after of the original, it's loosely based on the novel The Vicomte de Bragelonne. A key difference between the two Dogtanian adaptions and Dumas' novel is that the character traits of Athos and Porthos were interchanged, making Athos the extrovert and Porthos the secretive noble of the group.
In 1989, Gakken produced a new anime adaptation called The Three Musketeers Anime, this time with human characters, which features several departures from the original.
Albert the Fifth Musketeer is a 1994 French animated series featuring a new musketeer, the titular Albert.
Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers, a direct-to-video animated movie produced by Walt Disney Pictures and the Australian office of DisneyToon Studios, directed by Donovan Cook and released on 17 August 2004.
A Barbie adaption of the tale by the name of Barbie and the Three Musketeers was made in 2009.
Its not generally appreciated, because many of Dumas' books are not easily available in English, that
he wrote a number of other books involving the Musketeeers, principlly D'Artagnan.
https://www.orderofbooks.com/authors/alexandre-dumas/
The Three Musketeers (1844)
The Red Sphinx (1844)
Twenty Years After (1845)
Louise de La Valli?re (1845)
The Vicomte de Bragelonne (1847)
Ten Years Later (1847)
The Man in the Iron Mask (1850)
Blood Royal (2020)
Note that 'The Man in the Iron Mask' is chronologically 7th on that list!
I think that one or two of those have also been filmed - or adapted.
-
My introduction was the "Banana Splits" cartoons. Crazy enough... both "The Arabian Knights" and "The Three Musketeers", I believe they did 17 episodes each. BUT, "Danger Island", they did 26 episodes. Which means, in order to see "Danger Island" all the way to its end (it was one long SERIAL!) you had to sit through 9 weeks of reruns. And the 2nd time around (if you decided to sit through that), the cartoons did not match up with the live-action part for the entirety of the reruns.
They could run the cartoons 3 times in one season, the live-action serial twice. (Would it have killed them to do 26 cartoons apiece?)
That's very odd. I thought "TEN YEARS LATER" was also "THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK". (Then again, I bet a lot of people thought "TEN YEARS LATER" must take place before "TWENTY YEARS LATER", when in fact, it's actually 30 years after the original story.)
I like to compare "THREE MUSKETEERS" / "IRON MASK" to "HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME" / "PHANTOM OF THE OPERA". In both cases, one story tends to be adapted faithfully, while the other, it's like watching a completely-different story in each film version. Who knows why?
I do believe the most famous / popular version ever done may well be the 4-hour film by Richard Lester, which was cut into 2 films and released as "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" / "THE FOUR MUSKETEERS". The version with Gene Kelly actually did BOTH of those stories, but in only 2 hours (so the damned things races by so fast you can't believe what you're watching).
The silent version of "THE THREE MUSKETEEERS" is remarkably close in story to the Lester film.
Strangely enough... the silent film "THE IRON MASK" actually adapted both "THE FOUR MUSKETEERS" and "THE IRON MASK". I didn't realize this for decades, because, apparently, my local PBS station in the early 70s cut the film into 2 parts and ran them on consecutive weeks. I can't imagine what else they might have done, as, when I watched it off AMC or TCM, I had NO MEMORY at all of the first half, but clearly remembered the 2nd half.
It's really twisted and downright EVIL how one person, on learning the Queen had twins, decides to separate them at birth and one will be raised in poverty and ignorance. As far as I know (I've never read any of the books), the "poor" twin is the one used by conspirators to kidnap the "good" king and make him a prisoner, so they can loot the country.
However (if I got this right), in the 1939 James Whale film, he turned it upside-down. The "good" twin was raised BY The Musketeers, while the "bad" twin grew up a spoiled rat-b****** and was running the country into the ground. The small province where the Musketeers had been forced to retire to, had been granted freedom from paying taxes... until the "bad" twin grew up and decided to put a stop to that, without knowing the circumstances. He had the Musketeers arrested, and on realizing their young charge was a dead ringer for himself, decided to have him impersonate the king, in the hope that an assassination plot would result in HIS death, rather than his own. But the "good" king was SO good, on seeing how the country was in trouble, he convinced the crowds he would do all he could to help them, and they cheered him on!
It was only after this that the king's henchman told him WHO the twin really was... and because there was a law against spilling royal blood, he got the idea to imprison him in the mask.
That 1939 movie struck me as being such a reflection on how corrupt politics hare TODAY, it seemed more "current" now than when it was made.
By the end, the bad king is killed, the good twin has fallen in love with the princess from another country, and ALL 4 of the Musketeers are also killed (as they also were in the silent version).
I could really see why Louis Hayward quit THE SAINT series after only one film. He was fantastic in that, but RKO's budget was so MISERABLE, I'm guessing he couldn't resist moving on to higher-profile projects as soon as possible (as, eventually, George Sanders did also).
I really wish ANY OTHER studio had gotten the rights to THE SAINT. When the author gets pissed off at your efforts, you know you're doing something wrong.
Oh yeah-- and Warren William played the older D'Artagnon in that, around the same time he did his first LONE WOLF film.
-
When the author gets pissed off at your efforts, you know you're doing something wrong.
Oh, the Author almost always gets pissed off with film and TV adaptions.
Charteris also was pissed off at the Roger Moore TV show which created the version that most people are familiar with.
-
Oh, the Author almost always gets pissed off with film and TV adaptions.
Charteris also was pissed off at the Roger Moore TV show which created the version that most people are familiar with.
REALLY? That I didn't know.
Crazy enough... my first exposure to "The Saint" was the 2nd movie, which for the longest time, now, I consider the WORST one RKO did-- "THE SAINT STRIKES BACK". I saw it 3 times before it made any sense at all (it's even worse on that score that Hawks' "THE BIG SLEEP"). Then I read the novel... JESUS!!! "Angels Of Doom" became my favorite novel of all time.
Crazy enough, they did a semi-remake of it, "THE SAINT TAKES OVER". Both involve a woman seeking recenge against criminals who framed her father, causing him to commit suicide. But I rate "TAKES OVER" as the 2nd-BEST of the films. (Insanely, Wendy Barrie is in BOTH films. RKO apparently had an actress shortage.) ;D
It was several years before some NYC area station began running the B&W episodes. I was STUNNED at the much-better writing (most were adaptations of the short stories) AND, Moore's acting. I've NEVER seen him as good as he was in those first 2 seasons!! Nothing he did after is in the same class. And his Bond films are a waste. My favorite of those, by a mile, is "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY", and even there, I keep wishing Timothy Dalton had taken over 3 fims earlier than he did.
I liked the Val Kilmer film for what it was... BUT... I knew it was just "WRONG" on so many levels. Basically... it's NOT "Simon Templar". AT ALL.
It was a discussion on THIS board that recently, suddenly clued me in to EXACTLY what those IDIOTS had done. They'd adapted THE WRONG CHARACTER!!! Geez.
That should have been a "LONE WOLF" movie. It's pretty much a loose adaptation of the 1914 novel.
-
THE BEST HOUSE IN LONDON (1969)
Late-60s Victorian Sex Farce ***** (of 10)
To tackle the problem of streetwalkers in Victorian London, a plot is hatched with the blessings of the home secretary to organize a high-end house of ill repute aimed at rich customers, with the government's blessings, provided any hints of scandal can be avoided.
There were a LOT of crazy comedies made in England in the mid-to-late 60s, perhaps starting with "A HARD DAYS NIGHT" on to "THE ABC MURDERS", "WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT" and a multitude of others. Suffice to say, this is another one of those. The plot is all over the place, with 3 or 4 main threads colliding in a classic case of people working at cross-purposes, but I have to say, it's WELL-ENOUGH done that it's way, WAY better than, say, "CASINO ROYALE". That may not sound like high praise, but Joanna Pettet has a prominent role in both, so it's a fitting comparison.
She plays a woman trying to "save" fallen women and teach them professions they can support themselves with (I think of "Laura Lyons" in "Hound of the Baskervilles" who took a course in typing after her abusive husband deserted her). Then there's David Hemmings, who plays a journalist who's inspired to support her cause... and, also, plays the sex-maniac nephew of a government official who's trying to get back into his uncle's will after being disowned, and sees setting up the "house" as the best way to do it.
And then there's "Count Pandolfo", who's building a spectacular airship, but is having trouble getting publicity for it. This seemingly-unconnected thread winds up having more and more to do with the "main" story that one would expect. Pandolfo is played by one of my favorite English character actors, Warren Mitchell, who I lovingly recall from 2 episodes of "THE AVENGERS" and several of "THE SAINT", but is probably best known in England as the star of "TIL DEATH DO US PART", the show "ALL IN THE FAMILY" was based on.
In addition, there's a mountain of wonderful character actors crammed into this in large and tiny parts. Just the ones I'm familiar with include George Sanders, John Cleese, Bill Fraser (the police inspector who was never told that the house was set up by the government for the gentry), Maurice Denham (the newspaper publisher), Wolfe Morris (the Chinese trade ambassador involved with an opium farm; I just saw him as a Chinese fighter in an early AVENGERS episode), Martita Hunt (her last film), Hugh Burden, Eric Barker, Veronica Carlson (one of the prostitutes), Ferdy Mayne, Margaret Nolan, Rhonda Parker, Milton Reid (a Chinese swordsman), and finally, Peter Jeffrey (one of my favorite recurring faces on THE AVENGERS) and Thorley Walters, playing a pair of characters who are, apparently, NOT Sherlock Holmes & Doctor Watson!
There were several genuinely funny moments in here. One of my favorites was when they hear "Dr. Jekyll" is on the guest list, and someone says, "Better send him TWO passes."
This may not ever become one of my favorite comedies, but it was definitely worth getting ahold of. It amazes me I never heard of this until quite recently, and it also rather blows my mind that it was given an 'X' rating, the very 1st film to ever get one from the MPAA.
I?m totally unfamiliar with the producer or writer, but as for the director, Philip Saville, the only other thing of his I?ve seen, is the 1977 BBC adaptation of "COUNT DRACULA". Now that IS a classic!
-
A STUDY IN TERROR (1965)
Holmes, Hookers & Whitechapel HORROR (7 of 10)
As Jack The Ripper is murdering prostitutes, someone sends Sherlock Holmes a doctor's tool kit which suggests the murders are somehow tied in with a titled family. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister urges his brilliant aide Mycroft to ask for his brother's help, neither realizing Sherlock is already on the case! The investigation winds up involving a pawn shop owner who unknowingly may have supplied the murder weapon, a bar owner involved in blackmail, and a police mortuary doctor who also runs a soup kitchen for the poor, and other things. WHO is The Ripper, and WHY is he killing one woman after another? Although in real life the case was never officially solved, this film suggests an answer, and surprisingly, does tend to play fair with the clues.
In the German print of SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DEADLY NECKLACE (1962), Holmes mentions that Jack The Ripper is on the loose. But somehow, the company that made that film never got around to doing their intended follow-up, and 3 years later, an English company connected with the Doyle estate made it instead! I make a point of bringing this up because, while stage veteran John Neville (THE FIFTH ELEMENT) and Donald Houston (WHERE EAGLES DARE) make a very good Holmes & Watson, I found myself dearly wishing this film had instead starred Christopher Lee & Thorley Walters, BOTH of whom impressed me in the German film FAR MORE, and, that's despite the lack of their own voices due to studio incompetence!
What a GOREGOUS, VISUALLY-STUNNING film!! I just got my hands on Mill Creek Entertainment's 2018 Blu-Ray, and was blown away by it as much as by the 1959 Hammer HOUND (Twilight Time Blu-Ray) and the 1962 NECKLACE OF DEATH (Severin Films Blu-Ray), especially as for the past 40 years I've been putting up with an absolutely-WRETCHED, ghastly, awful (and butchered) print from Philly's Channel 29, which, apart from being in fullscreen and off a bad signal, had all kinds of faded colors, damage, and 12 MINUTES missing. I suspect a lot of people who watch old movies these days have NO IDEA how good they really have it, compared to back when.
My GOD, what a CAST!! Frank Finlay is a rather serious, low-key "Inspector Lestrade". Among the many things I've seen him in are THE THREE MUSKETEERS, SHAFT IN AFRICA and COUNT DRACULA (1977). Funny enough, he played Lestrade again in MURDER BY DECREE (1979), which also dealt with Jack The Ripper.
Cecil Parker is "The Prime Minister". Among his many films, I'll always most remember him from THE SAINT'S VACATION (1941), where he played what I consider the single best "Saint" villain ever seen onscreen.
Robert Morley all but STEALS the film as the first-ever on-screen "Mycroft Holmes", who's both burning with intelligence, but also hilarious as he fumes at what he sees as his brother's faults.
Barry Jones is "The Duke Of Shires", who deeply offends Watson with his view of physicians. I first saw him in THE OUTER LIMITS episode "The Borderland", but he more impressed me as Claudius, the smartest person in the story of DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS (1954). Funny enough, just before doing this film, he appeared in the Douglas Wilmer SHERLOCK HOLMES tv series as "Charles Augustus Milverton".
Anthony Quayle plays "Dr. Murray", the overworked police doctor who also crusades for the poor, and would seem to be one of the top suspects. His long resume includes TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE, THE GUNS OF NAVARONE, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, MURDER BY DECREE, and an episode of THE SAINT (how'd that get in there?).
Judi Dench is "Sally", Murray's assistant. I guess I mostly know her for 2 things-- "Jean" from AS TIME GOES BY, and "M" in 7 JAMES BOND movies! It's amazing to see her so young in this!
John Fraser is "Edward Osborne", who's looking for his missing brother. I have to rank him as one of the most handsome actors I've ever seen from England, and I've seen him in a DANGER MAN, REPULSION, a RANDALL AND HOPKIRK (DECEASED), a COLUMBO, but what I'll always mostly remember him for, the final 3 Tom Baker episodes of DOCTOR WHO, "Logopolis" (parts 2-4).
John Cairney is the missing "Michael Osborne", who the police come to think may be The Ripper. Another very-handsome actor, I've seen him in THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS, CLEOPATRA (1963), a DANGER MAN, an AVENGERS, but mostly, "Hylas" from JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS (1963).
Also in the cast are German actors Peter Carsten & Charles Regnier as a bar owner and a pawn shop owner; Adrienne Corri as a hooker who's "disappeared", and the always-delightful Barbara Windsor (CARRY ON) as one of the victims. (HALF her part was cut from the tv version I've been putting up with for decades!)
2 people that rarely get mentioned in reviews are the film's executive producer and its director. As it turns out, this is the work of HERMAN COHEN, England's own "schlockmeister", clearly getting above his usual level of quality. Among his outragiously-shocking (but always fun) productions have been no less than 3 nasty classics with Michael Gough-- HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM, KONGA and the infamous TROG! In addition, there's also BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA, I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF, I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN, BLACK ZOO, BERZERK and CRAZE. As they say, "Collect 'em all!"
And then there's director James Hill. I knew I knew that name! While most of his work I've never seen, he did 3 episodes of THE SAINT-- but, more importantly (to me), he did no less than 8 episodes of THE AVENGERS!! These number among my very favorites: "Castle De'ath", "Quick-Quick Slow Death", "A Touch Of Brimstone", "Honey For The Prince", "Epic" (all these with Diana Rigg) and 2 of the very best with Joanna Lumley, "To Catch A Rat" and "Faces". (He also did CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY, but I'll try not to hold that against him.)
If I have any criticism of this film, it's that both Neville & Houston's performances are too "over-the-top", bordering on "cartoony". I know Neville had a long stage career, but it seems to me in this film he's "playing to the back row".
In addition, too much of the dialogue in this film is comprised of "cute" references to about a DOZEN various Arthur Conan Doyle stories. I've been watching so many Holmes films in recent years, it gets annoying to repeatedly hear lines borrowed from other stories. This includes the part near the end where Holmes tells Watson he KNOWS who the killer is, but can't arrest him without proof (straight out of "The Hound of the Baskervilles"). Also, the final tag scene with the hat (WHY would people keep sending him "clues" in the mail?) is right out of "The Blue Carbuncle".
This is a VERY GOOD film that is just screaming to be a GREAT one, but doesn't quite make it. Oh well! At least it's fun, and now, I'll never have to put up with such a LOUSY print ever again.
-
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES
(BBC / 1968)
It's a very close call for me, as to which I feel is the better "authentic" adaptation of this story-- Peter Cushing (1968) or Tom Baker (1982). I had to watch it twice when I got the DVD to decide... Tom Baker, by a very narrow margin.
The first half of the Baker version (it was done as 4 half-hour episodes, so that's the first 2 out of 4), I consider just about "PERFECT". As long as I ignore that the 3 leads (Holmes, Watson, Sir Henry) are all TOTALLY mis-cast, which I can do because ALL 3 rise to the occasion and give performances that go beyond their inherent limitations. The story is presented in what I feel is perfect detail and pacing. It's the 2nd half where it falls to pieces, mainly because this 4-parter feels like it SHOULD have been a 5 or 6-parter, and that 3 or 4 episodes seem to have been CRAMMED into only 2! But apart from that, just about everything in it feels BETTER and more watchable than the unfortunate Jeremy Brett version, which suffers from the twin problems of a seriously-depressed lead actor at the start, and a totally-incompetent direct by the end.
On the other hand, the 1968 version with Cushing & Nigel Stock mainly suffers from having the most cramped, "cheap"-looking Baskerville Hall interior I have ever seen. Still, the BBC is more known for period drama, not "epic" production, so I suppose one MUST try to overlook this.
The first half is nice, but almost seems pedestrian. However... the 2nd half, now this IS amazing to watch! So many scenes in this are SO damned good, from Stapleton berating Henry about Beryl (in a sequence that visually seems inspired directly from the 1929 German version) to Stapleton apologizing to Henry (frankly, THIS was done MUCH better in the Baker version). But the whole thing takes off when Watson goes searching for "the other man" hiding on the moor, and finds Holmes, who reveals that Watson's letters to him have clearly revealed the identity of the murderer! But before Holmes can tell his friend the name, they hear the scream of someone being attacked by the hound. No sooner do they find it's really Selden, then Holmes tells Watson, "It's the murderer checking to see his work-- SAY NOTHING." And Stapleton walks up to "see what happened".
The next 2 scenes are INCREDIBLE!!! First there's the one at the tavern, where the body is taken, and Holmes convinces Watson that Stapleton is their man, BUT, he cannot be arrested because they have no proof and could never convince a jury.
Then, back at the Hall, the details are carefully laid out one-by-one, in a manner that no one watching could possibly be confused. Watson is shocked to learn Beryl is NOT Stapleton's sister-- but his WIFE! Holmes then notices the portrait of Sir Hugo, and shocks Watson again by pointing out the clear resemblence to Stapleton-- who is in fact, a Baskerville, and very likely the son of Roger who died in South America. He then explains how when Stapleton admitted he once ran a school, it allowed Holmes to trace his previous fake identity. (At some point, I realized this EXACT same bit was later reused in Agatha Christie's EVIL UNDER THE SUN in connection with that's story husband-and-wife team of murderers.)
And then we see a scene that DOES NOT appear in ANY other version-- when Stapleton is gloating to his wife how his plans are about to succeed, until she BEGS him to stop. Bad enough she wants him to do so after he's worked toward it for TEN years, but then when she slips up and accidentally reveals SHE sent Henry the note of warning in London... he goes BERZERK and beats her fiercely. WHAT A BASTARD!!! In at least 2 other versions, we see Beryl tied up in bed, having been beaten, but don't see how it happened. Here, while so much of the story keeps jumping from one scene to the next, this VITAL scene plays out slow and carefully.
We also see Holmes confront Laura Lyons, and convince her that the man who offered her marriage is ALREADY married, and all the pieces of exactly how Sir Charles met his death finally fall into place. it's criminal that the entire Laura Lyons sub-plot was left out of MOST adaptations, as it's so VITAL to understanding how the whole story hangs together! In this case, I prefer the Baker version, as that one had Caroline John as Laura (I've always liked her), and Baker is just MESMERIZING when he tells her, "You're very lucky to be alive."
Again, the main fault with this adaptation is the length. I just don't think you can REALLY do this story accurately and do it justice in "only" 100 minutes. When Stapleton goes down in the mire, THE END CREDITS roll. NO epilogue whatsoever. I begin to wonder if anyone will ever do a "perfect" adaptation of this thing, and stick to the book at the same time.
-
Looking for SAKI and Sredni Vashtar, (Other post) I found this curious documentary on HOLMES.
Sherlock Holmes - Forty Minutes - The Case of Sherlock Holmes - 1987
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPaQC-swbuY&list=RDCMUC_2KIIUEbs1GwmaGs44vvKg&index=4
cheers!
-
Then there is this;-
The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It (1977)
John Cleese, Arthur Lowe, Ron Moody
Description: The grandson of the world’s first and foremost consulting detective and his bumbling, bionic sidekick attempt to catch the only living descendant of Professor Moriarty.
-
Then there is this;-
The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It (1977)
John Cleese, Arthur Lowe, Ron Moody
Description: The grandson of the world’s first and foremost consulting detective and his bumbling, bionic sidekick attempt to catch the only living descendant of Professor Moriarty.
"GOOD LORD!"
;D
-
SHERLOCK HOLMES: LA VALLE DELLA PAURA (1968)
The Valley Of Fear-- ITALIAN style! (6 of 10)
In a large mansion surrounded by a moat, a man is murdered, a shotgun blast completely destroying his face. Holmes & Watson are consulted, and the results of their investigation are quite surprising-- especially to the completely-exasperated local police inspector!
At the same time the BBC was doing their latest SHERLOCK HOLMES tv series (with Peter Cushing & Nigel Stock), RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana decided to adapted 2 of Doyle's novels, each as a 3-parter (6 episodes total). What a wonderful surprise it was to me, when I went on Ebay looking for "L'ULTIMO DEI BASKERVILLE" to find this other one, "LA VALLE DELLA PAURA", which I didn't even know existed until the day I ordered both from the same seller (saving quite a lot in shipping in the process). The fact that I was so familiar with both stories is what made me want to get them so much-- despite the fact that these tv episodes are in ITALIAN-- with NO English subtitles-- and, I don't speak Italian! Whatta ya know-- I ENJOYED it anyway!
The sets are lavish and highly-detailed, the locations are gorgeous, the writing (as I suspected by the length) really takes its time and is faithful to the source material, the camera-work lovingly takes full advantage of the sets & locations. This being said, I rather imagine most modern film or tv viewers would find it over-long, excessively-talky, and interminable to sit through. NOT me! And this is really saying something, given that, apart from character and location names, I barely understood a word of the dialogue.
Nando Gazollo is a very laid-back, relaxed Holmes who clearly LOVES his work. On that score, he reminds me a bit of Ronald Howard, Christopher Plummer or Ian Richardson. There's a moment early in the story, when we first see him at home working on some chemical experiment, where he looks straight at the camera and smiles at the audience, breaking the 4th wall. I got such a laugh out of that. Later on, like Plummer in "Silver Blaze", he seems to be really enjoying himself as he slowly, one piece at a time, doles out the facts of the case to the local police inspector, who's becoming more infuriated with both the case and Holmes as he goes.
Gianni Bonagurra as Watson also breaks the 4th wall when we first see him, and as the story progresses, gives us a very thoughtful, intelligent Watson, who may have no idea what's going on at first, but as things progress, not only catches on quick, but in the later part becomes Holmes' spokeperson, explaining more things to the local inspector than Holmes bothers to. And we can see, both Holmes & Watson enjoy this arrangement! Watson was always closer to Doyle in character, and in the stories is Holmes "chronicler"-- here, we see him doing it while actually out on a case.
Having seen versions of VALLEY by both Arthur Wontner (1935) and Ronald Howard (1954), my interest was mainly caught by those scenes I could recognize, even without understanding all that was being said. My favorite bits include when Holmes holds up the dumbbell and asks, "Where's the OTHER one?", which at the time, nobody grasps the significance of. Later, Holmes & Watson go into town to a local hotel, and make inquiries about a supposed friend from America, at which point the hotel manager spouts out "Grant?" "AH, YES!" This allows them to find out what room "Grant" is in and search it. And then of course there's the look of total shock and indignation on the local inspector's face as Holmes is revealing that "Grant", an assassin from America, is actually DEAD... and his intended victim, "John Douglas"... ISN'T.
After it all seems to be cleared up, Holmes then conspires with Douglas & his wife to draw the 2nd assassin out of hiding, and convince HIM that Douglas is really dead. This scene was not as clear onscreen, but I think I read between the lines correctly. We also have the fun of seeing Holmes disguised as a church minister in that sequence.
You know, it really is a shame that the Jeremy Brett series never tackled this, especially during that ill-advised 1993 season where some IDIOT executive at Granada arbitrarily decided to make "all" future stories 2 hours... then, completely failed to adapt the 2 remaining NOVELS in the process. (Christopher Lee at the time recorded a book-on-tape of "Valley", performing ALL the character voices himself. My God, did that man have untapped talents!)
As one might imagine, I really wish somebody would put this out WITH English subtitles. I've already written to Severin Films, who did such an absolutely stellar job on their EUROCRYPT OF CHRISTOPHER LEE box sets, suggesting they look into just that-- as well as also tackling a whole list of foreign Holmes films, none of which seem to be wildely available.
If anyone would like a copy of this, I highly reccomend checking Ebay, and if you do so, find the seller who has BOTH Italian stories as a set. It's been my experience in the last 8 years that Italy is one of the most expensive when it comes to shipping costs, and in this case, the shipping was MORE than BOTH DVDs together! And that's with it taking 16 days for me to get it. But I'm certainly glad I went for it.
-
L’ULTIMO DEI BASKERVILLE (1968)
The Hound Of The Baskervilles—ITALIAN Style! (5 of 10)
As they did with "The Valley Of Fear", RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana adapted Doyle's "Hound" as 3 hour-long episodes (slightly longer this time). Once again, the locations, the sets, the camerawork, the acting are all wonderful. However, this time, the lack of English subtitles was a bit more of a problem, as like so many other versions of the story before and after this one, they decided to "play" with it. Oh well!
It starts out fine enough, with Sir Charles receiving a note, which he burns before going out to meet someone... and then being found dead soon after by Dr. Mortimer. However, unlike virtually every other version I've seen, we then immediately cut to Holmes & Watson travelling to the country by coach (as they did in "Valley"), without having met Mortimer in Baker Street or hearing the legend of the hound therein! So, the main difference here is that Holmes is on the scene for nearly the entire story, which removes a key point of Doyle's intention when he wrote it (I'm pretty sure), to feature Dr. Watson as the main character for a change. (Doyle was sick to death of Holmes when he wrote it, having already killed Holmes off several years earlier, and presenting this new story as a flashback that takes place before his "death".)
Episode 1's climax involves Holmes tackling Selden, the escaped convict (who gets away). Episode 2's climax involves Selden getting killed by the hound (while wearing Sir Henry's clothes). In between, we get to meet most of the usual suspects, including ever-smiling Jack Stapleton, his stunningly-beautiful sister Beryl, Frankland, and the Barrymores, who serve as a major red herring.
On reaching episode 3, I was wondering how, even with an hour left, they were going to cover everything, and-- shockingly-- they DIDN'T! It kinda floors me that with far more than an extra hour over the 2 BBC versions (1968, 1982), the Sy Weintraub film and the Granada film (1983, 1988), they STILL managed to leave out some very important parts! I guess that's what they get for just taking their time-- far too much time. Instead of it feeling complete, it feels padded-out. Hmm.
The climax, where Holmes, Watson and a police officer stake out Stapleton's house, then are at hand when Sir Henry is attacked, was also used in the Tom Baker, Ian Richardson & Jeremy Brett versions. Taking the wounded Henry back to Stapleton's and finding Beryl bound & gagged was also in these 3 (I'm pretty sure), and following Stapleton, only to watch him SINK to his death in the mire, was used in the 1968 Peter Cushing TV version, as well as Tom Baker's & Jeremy Brett's (the Ian Richardson version had a MUCH-more exciting action climax before this happened, though). Seeing Henry & Beryl, once the truth about her has come out, taking a walk together-- two people who've both been terribly abused by one man who's now DEAD-- I've only ever seen in the Richardson film (one of my favorites, despite it veering away from the book so far). All this makes me really want to make up for the terrible oversight of my still not having read the novel after all these years!
The thing that baffles me the most is the complete absence of Laura Lyons (Frankland's disowned daughter). MOST adaptations leave her out, yet the ones she's in make you realize she's one of the KEY parts of the mystery of how Sir Charles died in the first place! She's in the 1968 Peter Cushing version, as well as the Tom Baker & Ian Richardson versions (though they made some drastic changes in there, as it's the only one she actually gets killed in).
A real highlight for me was actress Marina Malfatti, who I think must be the most beautiful "Beryl" I've ever seen. She reminds me a lot of Morgan Fairchild (who once played "Irene Adler" opposite Christopher Lee & Patrick Macnee).
I still enjoyed this quite a bit, but now I'm really wishing more than before that somebody would put out a version of this film WITH English subtitles.
-
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1970)
I got this last month. As it turns out, my favorite store on Ebay had ONE copy left of the 2014 DVD, for REAL cheap, so I snapped it up. Thinking about it, the fact that the film has been described at noticably NOT having been "restored", makes me think, WHY should I bother with a higher-end disc, when, on my TV, I can't tell the difference?
Well... Tonight I finally dug out my 1980s videotape recorded off Philly's Channel 57. AAAAAAAAAAUGH!!! I knew it was bad, but I didn't think it was THIS GOD-AWFUL. I have this on the same tape with A STUDY IN TERROR (1965), which was taped off Philly's channel 29. I thought THAT was horrible. Fullscreen, colors terribly faded at beginning, multiple scenes missing, lots of damage, terrible signal-- and 11 MINUTES cut for broadcast. JESUS.
But nothing prepared me for what I just sat through. Fullscreen, terribly-fuzzy, faded, ghosts-- and "cut" doesn't do it justice. This was BUTCHERED. I clocked it at 1:36:01. 29 MINUTES were missing! GOD ALMIGHTY. This has to be the single WORST copy of any movie I ever recorded off TV in my entire 43 years of collecting videos.
Despite this not being in any way a favorite of mine, I think I may just have to re-watch the DVD in the next couple of days, just to get this HORROR out of my immediate memory. No wonder I never liked this film. (Actually, there are multiple other reasons, but I'd rather not go into them just now.)
-
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (more comments)
I watched the film for the 5th time the other day (2nd time on the DVD) and I honestly think I enjoyed it more than the previous 4 times. Probably a mix of that the disc LOOKS FABULOUS (and this is the version that hasn't been cleaned up as such), and the realization that Billy Wilder approached this in a certain way.
While the films seems to mostly take itself VERY seriously, Wilder IS NOT, and this is really a VERY low-key SATIRE, even PARODY, never meant to be the "real" characters of Holmes, Watson, and ESPECIALLY Mycroft. (That's NOT Mycroft AT ALL!!!!!) This is in fact a COMEDY pretending it's not a comedy. On that level, I can appreciate it for what it is.
And the fact that I can now watch it "intact" (as intact as it will ever be, knowing more than an hour was CUT OUT before it ever got to theatres), and it LOOKS as good as, say, Hammer's "HOUND", "THE NECKLACE OF DEATH" and "A STUDY IN TERROR" (all gotten recently on disc) improves it tremendously over the wretchedly-awful, ghastly copies I've had to put up with for the last 40 years,
It'll NEVER be a favorite of mine... but at least now it's a lot more tolerable.
-
profh0011, will you also be watching the newer Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch?
-
profh0011, will you also be watching the newer Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch?
Probably..................................NOT.
I seem to have a sort of cut-off date when it comes to newer films, TV series, and versions of old classic stories.
In the case of Sherlock Holmes, there've been SO MANY versions over the decades, most of which I bet most people have never seen or even heard of. And I've been enjoying so much of them in recent years.
I'm an odd one when it comes to Jeremy Brett. I appreciate how incredibly good most of his episodes were. But there's a small percentage of his episodes which are, for various reasons, UNWATCHABLE. (Basically, all 5 of the 2-hour stories, plus, the one where they studpidly combined 2 short stories in a single episode.) Looking back, he's not my favorite... but on the other hand, he did such a good job that, to me, they should have TAKEN A LONG BREAK after his series ended. But they haven't. They just keep doing more and more and more, "different" and "more different". I don't think anyone's interested in doing "authentic" versions since Brett. That's a shame.
I remember seeing a trailer for one of the Robert Downey films, and, based on the STYLE of the film, I thought, I DON'T EVER want to sit through those things.
-
I seem to have a sort of cut-off date when it comes to newer films, TV series, and versions of old classic stories.
In the case of Sherlock Holmes, there've been SO MANY versions over the decades, most of which I bet most people have never seen or even heard of. And I've been enjoying so much of them in recent years.
I'm an odd one when it comes to Jeremy Brett. I appreciate how incredibly good most of his episodes were. But there's a small percentage of his episodes which are, for various reasons, UNWATCHABLE.
I have watched some Jeremy Brett, but am no fan of his Holmes. The problem with Brett, to me, is that he treats the show as a stage and emotes as if he has to reach the back row in a large theatre. Way over the top and a most unlikable Holmes.
Here is a list of some modern adaptations.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/26/world/netflix-irregulars-sherlock-holmes-hnk-spc-intl/index.html
There are three Netflix shows here. I have made a vow never to ever watch anything on Netflix.
'The Irregulars' Everything wrong with modern film and television.
There have been other adaptations of the irregulars concept, as there have of nearly everything associated with the Holmes Canon. In books there are series on Watson, Mrs Hudson, Mycroft and even Inspector LeStrade.
Like many properties since Walt D started the trend, Hollywood uses and reuses characters and concepts tht are PD so they can avoid paying for rights. And they are also lazy.
'the teen sleuths are not cracking ordinary criminal cases. Instead, they must battle the dark, supernatural forces at work in creator Tom Bidwell’s horror-infused re-imagining of Victorian London. Rather than make a classic adaptation, “we wanted to do something very different,” says Bidwell.' Very different? No, exactly what Hollywood is currently pumping out everywhere. Victorian London was 'horror-infested' in any case without adding 'the Supernatural'.
led by a 17-year-old girl called Bea
Not in that time or that place.
“Sherlock” - was clever, thought-provoking and entertaining, but by the end too clever for it's own good and just annoying.
“Miss Sherlock”
Haven't seen it, but it's Japanese - which means probably more mature and adult than could be expected from Netflix, so could be good.
“Enola Holmes”
Netflix again, and this time with a character that is not Canon. Must be bad if the Holmes Estate sued them.
The Conan Doyle estate filed a lawsuit against Netflix claiming that its version of Sherlock Holmes, played by actor Henry Cavill as being kind and emotional,
Why do I think that 'being kind and emotional' is a euphemism for something they aren't saying?
And yes, Henry Cavill would be a good choice for 'Kind and Emotional'.
"Elementary'
This one I like, they have taken elements of the Holmes canon and made something very different. But they haven't subverted it and made it politically correct.
I have no problem with the reversed women's roles in this, all of the cast are excellent and so are the scripts. .
Set in modern-day Manhattan this TV series, which ran from 2012 until 2019, starred Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes, with Lucy Liu playing Joan Watson. Lee Miller’s Holmes is a recovering alcoholic, striving to maintain his sobriety under Watson’s watchful eye. Watson wasn’t the only character to be re-cast as a woman: Natalie Dormer played the part of Holmes’s nemesis, criminal mastermind Jamie Moriarty.
Either whoever wrote the 'copy' for this article is dishonest or lazy and careless.
I think that Holmes in this is not a recovering alcoholic, he is a recovering Drug Addict, which makes more sense.
‘Elementary’s’ Jonny Lee Miller Revels in the Idiosyncrasies of Sherlock Holmes
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/emmys-elementarys-jonny-lee-miller-567712/#!
For Miller, who previously starred in Eli Stone and Dexter, going back to the original texts by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was crucial to developing a character already so fully ingrained in the pop culture psyche. “I think the important thing to do was to go back to the basics, back to the books,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter. What piqued Miller’s interest was how “understanding” and “helpful” Sherlock — a recovering addict — was, traits the actor believes were rarely communicated.
THR: A big point was made early on about Watson being a woman, and Rob said their relationship would remain strictly platonic. Did you view that as a relief?
Miller: Yeah. I mean, say we’re going to hook up, then it wouldn’t be Holmes and Watson because that just doesn’t happen. You can play with certain things, and you can bend and shape characters to a certain extent, but if you bend them too far, they’re going to break and they’d be something else. I think there are some things that are sacred and need to remain solid — and their relationship is absolutely sacred.
My point exactly - if creative people tackle somebody else's creation with respect and integrity - and it shows- you can stretch it and it can work. But stretch it too far and it will just break.
There will continue to be adaptations of the Holmes Canon, the ground is just too fertile.
Cheers!
-
I still remember one of the biggest surprises some years ago was when I decided to watch Ronald Howard & Jeremy Brett at the SAME TIME, alternating between them every episode. the surprise was when I realized I was enjoying Ronald Howard MUCH MORE.
While Brett are all classic adaptations, only a handful of the Howards are, the rest being "new" stories. Howard portrays a young Holmes who is full of enthusiasm and really loves what he's doing. Marion Crawford's Watson, meanwhile, is tough, smart, LOUD, but also loyal. It's fun to watch him evolve from the first episode, where he's horrified at the idea of breaking into someone's house to get evidence, to later, doing so on his own to help get Holmes out of jail. There was also a fun scene in one story where he teaches Holmes how to fight with his fists.
This was years before I started going after so many of the older, more "obscure" versions, so many of which have become favorites of mine of late. (Holmes & Watson DID NOT start with Rathbone & Bruce-- not even close!)
-
I still remember one of the biggest surprises some years ago was when I decided to watch Ronald Howard & Jeremy Brett at the SAME TIME, alternating between them every episode. the surprise was when I realized I was enjoying Ronald Howard MUCH MORE.
While Brett are all classic adaptations, only a handful of the Howards are, the rest being "new" stories. Howard portrays a young Holmes who is full of enthusiasm and really loves what he's doing. Marion Crawford's Watson, meanwhile, is tough, smart, LOUD, but also loyal. It's fun to watch him evolve from the first episode, where he's horrified at the idea of breaking into someone's house to get evidence, to later, doing so on his own to help get Holmes out of jail. There was also a fun scene in one story where he teaches Holmes how to fight with his fists.
This was years before I started going after so many of the older, more "obscure" versions, so many of which have become favorites of mine of late. (Holmes & Watson DID NOT start with Rathbone & Bruce-- not even close!)
Reginald Owen also played Holmes in an early 1930s British feature film. It was certainly "watchable", but disappointed me, in that it was just a fairly mundane portrayal, and I expected more from one of my very favourite actors. I really like Ron Howard best, and Basil Rathbone second.
-
Orson Welles Rado credits
https://www.wellesnet.com/audio-orson-welles-the-radio-years/
All posted here.
Including this one;-
In 1954, Welles guest starred on BBC’s “Sherlock Holmes” as the evil Professor Moriarty opposite John Gielgud’s Holmes and Ralph Richardson’s Dr. Watson.
Posted on that site!
-
So many I like...
1914 DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE -- Alvin Newb as Holmes
1916 SHERLOCK HOLMES -- William Gillette & Edward Fielding
1921 The Dying Detective -- Eille Norwood & Hubert Willis
1929 DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE -- Carlyle Blackwell & George Serov
1931 THE SPECKLED BAND -- Raymond Massey & Athole Stewart
1932 LELICEK IN THE SERVICES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES -- Martin Fric as Holmes
1932 THE SIGN OF FOUR -- Arthur Wontner & Ian Hunter
1932 SHERLOCK HOLMES -- Clive Brook & Reginald Owen
(sequel to the stage play)
1933 A STUDY IN SCARLET -- Reginald Owen & Warburton Gamble
(loosely based on Steeman's "Six Hommes Morts")
1935 THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES -- Arthur Wontner & Ian Fleming
1937 DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE -- Bruno Guttner & Fritz Odemar
1937 SILVER BLAZE -- Arthur Wontner & Ian Fleming
1939 THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES -- Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce
1939 THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES -- Basis Rathbone & Nigel Bruce
(This is actually a very loose remake of the 1932 Clive Brook film!!! I was shocked that Holmes expert Richard Valley apparently DIDN'T know this.)
-
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1981)
Possibly the MOST AUTHENTIC "Hound" adaptation (7 of 10)
So far, I've seen 17 of at least 23 DIFFERENT film adaptations of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles". For the last several years, I've felt that the most authentic had to include the 1968 BBC version with Peter Cushing & Nigel Stock; the 1982 BBC version with Tom Baker & Terrence Rigby, and the 1988 Granada version with Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke. I think it's safe to say that I now rank this 1981 Russian TV version with Vasily Livanov & Vitaly Solomin among their number.
Of the 3 I've seen multiple times, by far my LEAST-favorite was the one with Jeremy Brett, which has long saddened me, as for the most part, I love his series. But his "Hound" suffers from his illness at the time, terribly slow pacing in the first third, and unbelievably bad directing & editing in the last third. It's close to unwatchable, and by a very wide margin the acting of Bernard Horsfall as Frankland, a relatively minor character in the middle, is the best on display, which just shows something was seriously off-kilter.
The 1982 version had 3 lead actors as Holmes, Watson & Sir Henry who were all totally miscast-- YET-- all 3 managed to rise to the occasion and do STUPENDOUSLY-impressive acting jobs, making me ignore their shortcomings. The first half is just about "perfect", while the 2nd half sadly suffers from terrible pacing, as it seems it should have been 5 or 6 parts instead of a mere 4. Despite this, it's currently my FAVORITE of the "authentic" versions.
The 1968 version blew me away the first time I saw it, and continues to every time I watch. This one has MUCH-better pacing, a near-perfect cast (Gary Raymond really stands out as Sir Henry), and I believe it re-arranges a couple of scenes and adds one important one that doesn't appear in any other film (when Jack learns Beryl was trying to warn Henry) that, it seems to me, IMPROVES on the book! From the moment Holmes reappears, we're doled out important info ONE bit at a time, each building on the others, and the step-by-step reveal of the entire mystery is just amazing to watch! Sadly, there's NO epilogue at all-- a mere 5 extra minutes could have fixed that.
Now, I know NOTHING about the people involved in this Russian film (in front of or behind the camera). But having watched so many different film versions of the same story, I have this overwhelming feeling that the screenwriter decided to just read the book, and turn it into a film VERBATIM. There are countless little details here and there which I've seen spaced out over several different movies, but I've never seen ALL of them together in one single film as they are here! One minor example is Mortimer's dog: in the Rathbone version, he says the dog "died". The Ian Richardson version we see the dog killed, while here, it runs off and only later do we find its remains. Then there's Laura Lyons, who is actually at the CENTER of the murder mystery! She's not even in most of the films. The 2 scenes where first Watson and then Holmes go to confront her are there in the 1968, 1981 and 1982 versions, nearly WORD-FOR-WORD the same in all 3, the main difference being the performances of the various actors involved. And then there's the climax, where I was surprised to see the shack in the middle of the mire, with Holmes & Stapleton shooting it out briefly. The only other version I've seen that in was the 1983 one with Ian Richardson.
I've said it before, I really need, for my own reference, to sit down and READ the novel from start to finish, so I can know with authority how the book actually went, and how each film compares to it. Absolute faithfulness is not an automatic prerequisite for "quality". I admire what was done here, but this one did not grip me or entertain me quite as much as several others have, including those which veer quite far from their source. Revealing the killer BEFORE Seldon's death, and revealing SO MANY details in the final scene at Baker Street, are things that seem to me to have been improved upon by moving them around a bit. I would highly reccomend this, but I leave it up to each individual how much or not they enjoy this version. Others I really love at the moment definitely include 1914, 1929, 1937, 1939, 1959, 1962, 1968, 1982 & 1983. (The other 1968 one-- from Italy-- I liked, but I'm sure I would enjoy it a HELL of a lot more... if only someone would put out a version with ENGLISH subtitles!)
(5-8-2023)
Sinister Cinema has this with English subtitles (not optional!). The print has nice picture & sound, slight damage (no restoration), and clocks in at exactly 2:23:27. However, it also has a very strange glitch, which I've never seen anywhere else. As far as I can tell, the film is running at the correct speed (an occasional question with some foreign films). But every couple minutes, there are these bits where for a second or so, the picture SLOWS down, then SPEEDS up. It looks as though someone was hand-cranking a manual camera (or projector) and not being consistent about it, except this goes on at various spots all through the picture! Makes me wonder what their source was for this disc.
(5-9-2023)
-
Here are two Holmes I didn't know anything about.
SHERLOCK HOLMES 1949 Television Episode Component 1 Of 2 Starring Alan Napier
[Yeah, better known from the BATMAN TV show!]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuaFdaD8TPI
[The adventure of the speckled band]
This is one of the worst YouTube uploads I have ever seen.
Sound at the beginning, but not at the end, only some of the visuals and some of it is missing entirely.
Also,
SHERLOCK HOLMES Unsold Television Pilot 1951 The Guy Who Disappeared
Sherlock Holmes - John Longden, Dr Watson -Campbell Singer
This only 24 minutes long - seems to have been recorded over something else, which is still on the tape.
Then of course there was this series.
Sherlock Holmes A Motive For Murder (1/2)
Geoffrey Whitehead as Sherlock Holmes and Donald Pickering as Dr. John H. Watson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uKHaCBsqKE&list=PL975NjlGoHlR9sW3gnh47VRevFRSXGgm5
Sherlock Holmes A Motive For Murder (2/2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr3wkkDWURo&list=PL975NjlGoHlR9sW3gnh47VRevFRSXGgm5&index=2
Most of this series is available here.
cheers!
-
Both the Alan Napier & John Longden films are in the SHERLOCK HOLMES COLLECTION box set, Volume 1 (Synergy Entertainment / 2015). There's 2 sets, which are basically a collection of rarities.
In the first film, Melville Cooper was Watson; he was "The Sheriff of Nottingham" in the classic 1939 THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. Campbell Singer was Watson in the 2nd one; he was the first and BEST of the "Inspector Lestrade"s in the Roger Moore SAINT series. The Longden film was an unsold pilot that was then released as a theatrical short.
The Geoffrey Whitehead-Donald Pickering series was produced by Sheldon Reynolds, the SAME American who did the 1954 Ronald Howard-Marion Crawford series. Instead of being made in France, the 2nd series was made in POLAND. I'm not sure what the percentage was, but the series was a mix of new episodes and REMAKES of the Howard episodes. Despite bigger budgets and more lavish locations, nothing in the later series comes close to impressing me as the 1954 series did. I really wish Reynolds had done a 2nd season with Howard & Crawford back when.
I'd neglected to add this 1979-81 series to my index until just now. I did some research, and one of the reviewers at the IMDB mentions it's available on a German box set, with MOST of the episodes having English language as an option. Not all of the episodes were broadcast in England-- and those apparently have Englsih subtitles.
-
Reginald Owen also played Holmes in an early 1930s British feature film. It was certainly "watchable", but disappointed me, in that it was just a fairly mundane portrayal, and I expected more from one of my very favourite actors. I really like Ron Howard best, and Basil Rathbone second.
Thanks entirely to an anonymous contributor at the IMDB, I found out that A STUDY IN SCARLET (1933) was in fact the first of 4 adaptations of Stanislas-Andre Steeman's "Six Hommes Morts" (1931). The cheap studio bought the rights to use the name of Doyle's novel, but not the story, and told their screenwriter to come up with something else. What he did was adapt a brand-new novel from Belgium-- uncredited, and presumably, UNPAID.
2 years later a 2nd adaptation was made in England, this one credited-- THE RIVERSIDE MURDER (1935). This one features Basil Sydney as Inspector Philip Winton & Alistair Sim as Sgt. "Mac" McKay.
And then in 1941, Continental Films in France did the 3rd, and by far most authentic version, LE DERNIER DES SIX (The Last Of The Six), with Pierre Fresnay as Le commissaire Wensceslas Voroboevitch. Gaumont has a Region 2 DVD from 2015 that has English subtitles, is running at the CORRECT speed (despite the box saying it's "PAL"), and has CRYSTAL-CLEAR picture & sound-- I mean, this is one DAMNED-good-looking restoration! The Gaumont disc with the subtitles is the version to buy! (Gaumont has 2 editions-- the Red box is the earlier one, the White box is the "good" one.)
Several people point out similarities to Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians" (1939), but if anyone's swiping anyone, Christie was swiping Steeman, as his novel came out in 1931. Also, in her story, all the victims are strangers, and are killed by one insane person. In Steeman's story, all the victims knew each other, and the murderer is eliminating the others to gain ALL the money from an agreement they made years earlier. Between wanting to get this sort-of "inheritance", the part where the killer has worked out a way to avoid being the obvious suspect (since they'd be the last one alive), and, an underground tunnel being involved in the climax, if anything, I'd say Steeman's story borrows from Doyle's "Hound of the Baskervilles", and does so in ways creative enough to be original. The climax of the French film reminds me a LOT of the climax of THE THIRD MAN (1949).
-
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1972)
Awkward and far too "American TV" (4 of 10)
I've seen 17 of the (at least) 23 different film adaptations of the "HOUND", and, crazy enough, this was only the 2nd one I ever saw-- on the same day I first saw the 1959 Hammer version! Little did I know how MANY better ones were waiting for me in the decades to come. It had been 51 YEARS since I saw this when it was first-run, and I was very much looking forward to seeing it again, and to compare it against the others. Having now done so... OY! There was just something about early-70s US TV that seemed utterly determined to remove all style, excitement and fun that had been present in most 60s TV, and I'm afraid this is a perfect example of that. It looks and feels exactly like what it is... by which I mean, every frame of this film just screams "70s US TV", and not in a good way.
The thing that caught my attention the most was the numerous elements from the novel that were NOT featured in most other films. This includes Cartright being sent on a mission to scour various hotels in search of the person who sent the warning notes, or the entire MAJOR subplot involving Laura Lyons, her bad marriage, estrangement from her father, her friendship with Stapleton & her desire to obtain a divorce. There's also the way Holmes explains various details of the case to Watson on their return to Baker Street at the end. The first and last of these I have only ever seen elsewhere in the 1981 Russian TV version! There's also Holmes recruiting Lestrade to arrest the culprit at the end, which I've only seen in the '81 Russian version and the '82 Tom Baker version.
There's also such odd bits as the villain intending to shoot Sir Henry in front of a clothing shop in London, which turned up in the 1983 Ian Richardson version, or Holmes accompanying Watson to Dartmoor, and only later pretending to leave so he can investigate without anyone knowing he's around-- which was one of the major changes of the 1967 Italian TV version! Mortimer saying his dog had died came from the 1939 Rathbone version. It goes on like this.
What really stands out is how the entire film feels awkwardly structured, photographed and edited, even more awkwardly dialogued (not one line seems to have come unchanged from the novel), and acted in a fashion that suggests the director told everybody to "hold back" and "tone it down". So many background characters are total ciphers, and those who should not be, like Beryl (the usually-gorgeous Jane Merrow), Lestrade (Alan Caillou not displaying one ounce of his usual character onscreen), Mortimer (Anthony Zerbe seemed to be on downers for his entire performance) and, for God's sake, Stapleton (William Shatner, who hardly has ANY screen-time at all, and barely even registers when he is on-camera!).
The worst thing I can say is... it doesn't FEEL like a Holmes film!
At least Stewart Granger got to display some character (though his Holmes does not seem to have any genuine warmth toward his best friend), and Bernard Fox is like a slightly-smarter and less-blustery Nigel Bruce. Arthur Mallet as the cabbie also has a nice moment, though the scene is ruined when Holmes names the fake detective rather than allowing the cabbie to do so himself. Writer Robert E. Thompson and director Barry Crane are the clear culprits here. Both apparently did nothing but TV in their entire careers, and the only long stretch I see by Crane is 15 episodes of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-- but, all in the years after Landau & Bain left the show. Hmm.
The best thing I can say about this is, it's NOWHERE near as awful as the Ross Martin CHARLIE CHAN pilot, but, if memory serves, nowhere near as good as the Robert Conrad NICK CARTER pilot. On the other hand, it's at least a HUNDRED times better than the unwatchable, UNFUNNY Peter Cook-Dudley Moore atrocity.
As of this writing, this TV film is available on DVD-R from a whole variety of mail-order outfits who specialize in rare, out-of-print items. DVD Lady, The Rare Movie Collector, The Film Collectors Society Of America, True TV Movies, Rare Flix, and Loving The Classics. I got the latter, mainly because it came with a plastic box rather than just a paper sleeve. Their copy was recorded off what I believe was a UK "Mystery" series that seems to have been hosted by Christopher Lee (though I could only see him for about half a second right at the end). In addition, Pidax, an outfit in Germany, has put out a Region 2 DVD which appears to be the only "official" release I've seen anywhere online. However, the only 2 sellers I've seen it available from, DO NOT ship to the US! Annoying, to say the least.
-
JIGHANSA ("Bloodlust" / 1951)
I just got 2 "new" versions of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" in the mail today, thanks to my best friend in Georgia running off a pair of Youtube files onto DVD-R. The first one is a Bengali film which is loosely based upon Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel “The Hound of the Baskervilles” and Hemendra Kumar Roy's novel “Nishithini Bivishika” (Ghost Horror).
The picture & sound are a bit fuzzy, but being able to watch this on my TV is so much better than having to sit in front of my computer. Luckily, this had English subtitles!
I found out some time ago that this film had been issued on DVD, on "Angel Digital Premium". I saw a copy once on sale at an Amazon India store, and I contacted the seller. Turned out, the disc was Region-Free, and had English subtitles-- but the seller DID NOT ship to the USA. So close but so far! Well, I have it now, and look forward to watching it.
The film was actually remade in 1962 as "BEEL SAAL BAAD" (Twenty Years Later), a Hindi film where it was turned into a musical-comedy-romance-murder myster-horror story. Yeah, all of the above. I've seen that 3 times so far, and it's a blast. Now I get to see the more "serious" version.
-
JIGHANSA (1951)
The Ghost Woman of the Marshes (5 of 10)
This is a Bengali film loosely based upon Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (version 7 by my count) and Hemendra Kumar Roy's novel "Nishithini Bivishika".
I found out some time ago that this film had been issued on DVD, on "Angel Digital Premium". I then found it at an Amazon Marketplace store in INDIA. I contacted the seller, who confirmed, it was "region-free" and had English subtitles. But he DID NOT ship to the USA. Oh well! Have not seen another copy since.
I then found it, in 2 files, posted on Youtube by Karigori Kobiyal. It's still there! But I wanted to be able to watch it on my (small) widescreen TV. My best friend (down in Georgia) was able to record it for me and run off a DVD. I watched it last night. The picture & sound quality varies throughout the entire film, but it's watchable. The real quirk is—my friend's got some VERY strange kind of recorder. Discs he runs off will not play on my regular Blu-Ray Player, but will on my Region-Free DVD Player. But, with that, I have to set the TV to "stretch" instead of either "normal" or "zoom".
Well, my new Region-Free Blu-Ray Player over-rides regular discs formats, and everything plays on "stretch". However... with my friend's disc, the picture is SQUEEZED horizontally, so the image looks taller than it is wide. Which is not what it looks like ON YOUTUBE. Weird. If I play more of his discs, I'm gonna have to dig out the DVD player again and use that!!
Okay, this story takes place in India, they've changed the names of all the characters, but, this is actually much-closer to Doyle's novel than the later 1962 Indian film, BEEL SAAL BAAD. In that one, the "Watson" character is a freelance private eye who is so goofy and goofy-looking, he reminded me of Avery Shreiber. And the "Holmes" character is actually an undercover police inspector whose identity you don't learn until the last act. In this one, you have the "normal" set up of the "Dr. Mortimer" character going to "Holmes" & "Watson" for help, except, they're both official police detectives. And, the shorter, rounder guy is "Holmes", the tall skinny guy is "Watson". Oh well!
Oh, and there's no dog in either version. But there is a woman pretending to be a ghost who keeps warning the “Henry” character to GET OUT, as his life is in danger.
Like several other versions, the climax takes place partly in a series of underground tunnels. I really need to find out if that's in the novel or not! It was also used in Belgian writer Steeman's "Six Hommes Morts", which itself was adapted to film 4 times. That story shares with "Hound" in having one man killing several others for financial gain.
The oddest part of the film, for me, is that certain random lines of dialogue are IN ENGLISH. How does that happen? Do some people in India speak in 2 languages at the same time?
I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy this a HELL of a lot more if I had a much-clearer print (on both picture & sound). That said, the 1962 version, which was done as a romantic musical comedy murder mystery, is a lot more fun than this one. But I’m really glad I got this!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZ2BNWl5r1CPLkiCED1aqWH4xGSM0_1mk9NF6oLHu9SlaHHW0CA2XbfJzM11QR6wCMbW0&usqp=CAU)
-
HERE's the "good" file, with English subtitles:
JIGHANSA (1951)
PART 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vScmNtbOoz8
PART 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPvAXSJkhw&t=1370s
-
Prof, Thank you!
-
You're welcome!
I got inspired to contact Severin Films. Here's what I wrote them:
"I've just watched the 1951 Bengali film "JIGHANSA", by my count, the 7th adaptation of Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskervilles". I did a review in which I mentioned someone needs to do a restoration of it, and issue it on BLU-RAY so people in every country can watch it at the correct speed! (Lately, that's even more important to me than picture & sound quality. Most people aren't aware how BR's are encoded in an entirely-different format than either PAL or NTSC.)
This would make a GREAT "twofer" with the 1962 remake, "BEEL SAAL BAAD", which was actually done as a romantic-musical-comedy-murder mystery. That film is a BLAST (but also, desperately needs a restoration)."
This time, I got a response:
"Thank you for the suggestion!"
Wouldn't it be so cool if these 2 movies from India turned up in their catalog at some point, both stunningly cleaned up on BLU-RAY ?
I always figure, you never know what ONE letter or e-mail might lead to. So, why not?
-
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1971)
This production of Russian TV is one of the MOST authentic to the book. (I suspect the 1981 Russian version may have used almost the same screenplay.) The only downside is... there's NO English subtitles. Oh well! I enjoyed it ANYWAY.
https://vk.com/video9396969_456239073
-
Found this one by chance, without looking for it.
Sherlock Holmes - The Hound of the Baskervilles - 1983
Ian Richardson and Donald Churchill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsbrMcZJ3vY
Denholm Elliot
Brian Blessed
Eleanor Bron
Martin Shaw
among others
Director - Douglas Hickok
As soon as I saw Ian Richardson, I thought, 'Of Course!' He would make a great Holmes.
So it's a pity he appears to have only made this one.
Particularly because in 'Hound' Holmes himself appears personally in less than half of the story.
Holmes sends Watson off to Baskerville House and (apparently) stays behind in London. We only see him half-way through the narrative, and then only in disguise.
All the actors are excellent.
A good Watson and a good Lestrade.
Martin Shaw, a surprising choice, plays the young Lord Baskerville well.
This print is not wonderful, unfortunately.
-
Sy Weintraub (who took over the TARZAN series with TARZAN GOES TO INDIA) paid good money for the rights to do 6 Sherlock Holmes films... only to find that the stories entered Public Domain. I read he allegedly sued Grenada TV when they began their series with Jeremy Brett, it was settled out of court, he took the money and walked away. No matter how I look at it, that's rotten.
Weintraub did 2 HOLMES films-- THE SIGN OF FOUR and THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. Both with Ian Richardson-- oddly, with 2 different Watsons-- both including bits of other stories (shades of the Universal series), but both, in my view, lavish big-budget ALL-STAR productions that looks so good it's hard to believe they were done for television!
I believe Charles Edward Pogue wrote both screenplays, and had a 3rd in the works, which, eventually, was filmed as HANDS OF A MURDERER with Edward Woodward & John Hillerman.
Although the 2 Richardson films are not the most authentic, they're both HIGH on my favorites list for adaptations of those stories. Richardson is among my favorite Holmes. While older than many, he brings a youthful ENTHUSIASM to it, showing the character has real love for the work he's doing. You know, while each Holmes actor could be said to exist in their own separate continuity, I tend to think of Richardson and Ronald Howard as being THE SAME version, as they're portrayals are so similar.
I'm not the only one who noticed this, but having Laura Lyons MURDERED by Stapleton (who promised her marriage) seems to have come from the long-lost 1929 version of HOUND. The difference being, in that, Stapleton actually told Laura he was married but planning to leave his wife; while here, Laura was still with her husband Jeffrey (Brian Blessed, to my knowledge his ONLY appearance in a version of HOUND), who winds up blamed for her murder.
I really need to read the novel one of these days. I was surprised that the scene of Stapleton pinning Holmes down in a shootout near the end had previously appeared in the 1981 Russian version! That version is so authentic, it makes me think that scene is from the book, when I had long thought it was made up for the 1983 film.
I like both Richardson films WAY better than their Jeremy Brett equivalents. While most of Brett's series is superb, all 5 2-hour episodes they did border on unwatchable.
-
The only version of Richardsons 'The sign of four' on youtuve is dubbed in Hindi so I will have to look elsewhere for a copy of that.
However, I have found
1/ This Canadian Version
The Sign of Four (2001) / full movie / Matt Frewer as Sherlock Holmes and Kenneth Welsh as Dr. Watson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeiomA2-RQ8
2/ This oddity.
Sherlock Homes and the Shadow Watchers (540p) FULL MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL7ceHfDA00
This was clearly a labour of love for Anthony D. P. Mann who produced, directed and starred in it.
He states that it was authorized by the Conan Doyle Estate..
It's a curates egg of a production. ['Parts of it were excellent'] But!
The cast is ill-chosen and the production patchy and the sound not good.
But I think I might like it when I watch it all the way through.
The game is afoot!
-
I've seen multiple versions of THE SIGN OF FOUR so far...
1923 / Eille Norwood -- This has been reported as being part of the massive BFI restoration of all 40 existing Norwood films (out of 47, the other 7 are considered lost). Someone, somehow, posted a TERRIBLE, almost-unwatchble copy of this on Youtube. I wonder how, as I've found no evidence that it's available on disc or anything else right now.
1932 / Arthur Wontner -- Ian Hunter (who played King Richard in the classic Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD) plays Watson in this. It concludes with a HIGH-SPEED boat chase (compared to the more authentic slow-mo chases in a couple later versions), and end with a wonderful dialogue twist. Watson GETS the girl, Holmes reacts by saying, "Amazing, Watson!" Watson replies, "Elementary, my dear Holmes!" I currently have 2 copies of this on DVD, 2 DIFFERENT kinds of terrible. As of 2021, Sinister Cinema has one listed as an "upgrade", "from 35 mm". It's on my list. I believe the 3 other available Wontners are all supposed to be "upgraded" in a single package, that's also on my wanted list.
1943 / Basil Rathbone -- there's a LITTLE bit of "FOUR" in SPIDER WOMAN, a film that borrows from 8 different stories at the same time! (Shades of Roger Moore's FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.)
1968 / Peter Cushing -- this BBC version, squeezed down to a single hour, amazingly manages to capture the essence of the story despite its insanely-short run-time. There's a wonderful scene of Watson getting to know Mary Morstan (who he winds up marrying between stories), and Holmes has a brief reunion with someone who knows him from his skills as an amateur boxer! John Stratton is fabulous as "Inspector Jones", who disses Holmes' "theories" before offering HIS OWN seconds later, then late in the story, comes crawling because he knows he needs Holmes' help.
1983 / Ian Richardson & David Healy -- Thorley Walters plays Major Sholto while Clive Merrison is Bartholomew Sholto. This has a lengthy sequence at a fun fare (also seen in the Wontner & Rathbone films). We see the murder before Holmes does, so it's less of a mystery, but the film is SO well-done, and I frankly enjoy it even more than Richardson's HOUND (though it's a close call on those 2).
1988 / Jeremy Brett -- so many insist this is "the best version" simply because Brett did it, but compared to Richardson, it's almost unwatchable. Ronald Lacey REALLY gets on my nerves as the over-nervous Sholto brothers, and the finale, where all is explained, just drags. Sometimes changing a story in an adaptation can seriously improve it.
1991 / Charlton Heston -- THE CRUCIBLE OF BLOOD (adapted from the stage play) is about 75% "The Sign Of Four", though this one starts in India, before moving to England many years later, so it's all told in the order it happened. However, the last act was designed to shock audiences familiar with Doyle's story, as it has a NASTY ending concerning one of the main characters from the original story.
-
One More
Sherlock Holmes: Hands of a Murderer» directed by Stuart Orme. Film UK 1990. Edward Woodward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4hrsQf8CB0
Edward Woodward as Sherlock Holmes and John Hillerman as Dr. John H. Watson.
Anthony Andrews - Moriarety
Peter Jeffrey
Warren Clarke
-
Just sent to MPI Home Video:
https://www.mpihomevideo.com/pages/contact-us
"THE COMPLETE SHERLOCK HOLMES" dvd box is one of my favorite items. I've watched all 14 films 3 times already, and am now on my 4th go-round.
The restorations of the 12 Universal films are fabulous. Also, "HOUND" (1939) looks fantastic.
However, "ADVENTURES" (1939) is noticably WAY TOO DARK in some places, notably when the gaucho is stalking Ann Brandon & the entire climax at the Tower Of London. You can barely see anything! There's also very-visible damage in those same sections.
I just feel somebody needs to do an extensive restoration of that one film. And, if it ever gets done, there should be some way for customers who already have the full box to get the upgrade as a replacement disc.
As an aside, there's a rumor among some reviews that the Blu-Ray version of the box does NOT have the 12 restorations the DVD box has. I find that difficult to believe.
-
Well, my huge, massive, chronological movie mega-marathon has finally reached this popular classic-of-sorts...
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1959)
Apart from SCREWING with the story and the characters virtually for the entire length of the movie, I find myself really wondering. WHO the hell is responsible for CUTTING out the ONE second where Cecile is seen FALLING into the mire, that IS THERE in the trailer??? (at 1:52) In the film, you see her running, they cut away, then they cut back, and she's sinking.
This reminds me of the one second in HORROR OF DRACULA where Dracula is seen CROSSING the room to get his hands on Van Helsing's throat. That's also in the trailer, but NOT the finished film. Strange editing choices. In DRACULA, it sped up the action, but in HOUND, it just made things more confusing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdqKV3-DRQ
-
I'm sure a lot of people have noted just HOW MANY little details from "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" turned up in THE SCARLET CLAW, from the foggy marsh, a legend recreated to deflect suspicion from a human murderer, said murderer living in the area under an assumed name, a viscious dog, Holmes having Watson investigate while he's gone off elsewhere, Holmes telling a potential victim he must do something to avoid living in fear for the rest of his life, Holmes & Watson pretending to leave the area to make the killer over-confident... this is virtually a loose adaptation of "Hound" in its own way!
Tonight, as I was mentally adding up these things while watching, another one crossed my mind that had escaped me before. At the climax, BOTH Holmes AND the murderer are together-- IN DISGUISE! This happened in the 1914 DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE, which itself was based on an earlier stage play. In the 1914 film, it's hilarious when, not for the first time, the murderer shows up disguised as Holmes, who he thinks he's disposed of... when, suddenly, "Stapleton" arrives for a visit-- except, it's really Holmes in disguise, deliberately taunting his prey.
The 1914 film is in the same package as the 1929 HOUND. I love 'em both, in different ways.
-
THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939)
The Influences Of Sherlock Holmes (6 of 10)
Lots of people over the decades have complained that Fox’s 1939 “ADVENTURES” has very little to do with William Gillette’s 1899 stage play. Fair enough. But no one—not even Scarlet Street magazine’s late editor Richard Valley, a Holmes movie expert if ever I saw one, seemed aware of what it actually was! Growing up, the Rathbone films were the earliest HOLMES stories I ever saw. But now, collecting DVDs, a whole new world has been opening up to me. In the last year, I not only saw the 1916 William Gillette film adaptation of his own play, but also the greatly-expanded 1922 remake of it with John Barrymore.
But I've also seen the 1932 Clive Brook film "SHERLOCK HOLMES", which, it turns out, is a direct SEQUEL to the story in the stage play. And, whatta ya know? It suddenly became obvious to me that, if anything, the 1939 "ADVENTURES" film is actually a very loose REMAKE of that!
Both films were made by Fox. Both open with Moriarty in the dock for previous crimes. But while he’s acquitted at the last minute in the ’39 film, the ’32 film has him sent to prison, after he threatens to murder the 3 people responsible for putting him there. Soon he breaks jail, murders the judge, and then hatches a scheme to frame Holmes for murdering the Scotland Yard inspector he was a rival of. Once Holmes has been arrested, he invites a whole gang of foreign criminals to run riot looting London, some of them "Chicago gangland" style-- as a DIVERSION for the REAL crime, robbing The Bank Of England.
I knew decades ago from a Scarlet Street article that there was a lot missing from the finished film. For decades, my impression was that Moriarty somehow learned of the murder of Ann Brandon’s father ten years earlier, and recreated the circumstances purely as a diversion. But according to Richard Valley’s audio commentary, Mateo, the guy with the bolas who killed Ann’s brother and tried to kill her, wasn’t hired by Moriarty, he actually was her father's killer, who had sought out Moriarty’s help in finding them. This was very similar to how in the 1935 Arthur Wontner film, “THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES” (an adaptation of “The Valley Of Fear”), Moriarty is consulted to help a vengeful member of the Scowrers mob get revenge on Pinkerton man Birdie Edwards. In that light, it seems more likely Mateo came to Moriarty seeking help, and Moriarty decided to take advantage of it as a diversion. What a HELL of a thing for Fox to leave out of the finished film! It's akin to the vandalism MGM performed against Dan Curtis' “NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS”.
The climax, Holmes chasing Moriarty around a tower before the latter falls to his death, is also swiped from Wontner's "TRIUMPH", while Watson getting the final line, "Elementary, my dear Holmes!" comes from Wontner's "THE SIGN OF FOUR" in 1932.
Oddly enough, a key moment from “The Hound of the Baskervilles”, where Holmes tells Sir Henry he must do what Holmes says, no matter how risky, or he’ll end up living the rest of his life in the shadow of death, was missing, like so many other elements were, from Fox’s “HOUND”, yet turned up almost verbatim in “ADVENTURES” with his instructions to Ann. It’s like this movie’s story wasn’t written, it was constructed.
I can’t end without mentioning Ida Lupino. I’ve admired her work for decades, but I really fell for her watching 1939’s “THE LONE WOLF SPY HUNT”. That film, made just before this one, was apparently the last time she played a light-hearted role, and “ADVENTURES” was her transition into more serious parts. I need to see more of her early films. I liked seeing her smiling.
So, if anyone’s ever watched “ADVENTURES” and felt like they were missing a key plot point or two… you were!
Addendum: 4-6-2024
The MPI SHERLOCK HOLMES box with all 14 Rathbone-Bruce films has all 12 Universals stunningly restored so they look better than they have in my lifetime. But the 2 Fox films have not been, presumably, as someone felt they didn't need to be. But in my opinion, "ADVENTURES" seriously needs restoration. Most of it looks stunning. However, the last reel or so-- from the moment the soldiers arrive with the Star of Delhi at The Tower, the entire rest of the film is SO DARK you can barely see what you're looking at. I discovered this week that if I crank my TV's contrast all the way up to "100" and also increase the brightness 3 points, the last section of the film is MUCH clearer. But I shouldn't have to do that in the middle of watching a film. Tonight, I dug out my VHS copy of a rental from the 90s, and confirmed that while the entire film is somewhat faded & fuzzy, that entire last section is MUCH brighter, and you can see every detail almost blotted out on the MPI DVD. (There's also the IDENTICAL bit of damage-- a pair of wide vertical lines on the right side-- early in the "Tower" sequence, which means the old rental and the source of the MPI disc were in fact the SAME print!) I wish MPI would go back and fix this one film, then offer it free to existing customers (perhaps in a trade-- it's been done with one book I know that was printed badly).
Also, in the realm of pure trivia: I finally noticed that BOTH William Austin AND Eric Wilton have cameos in this film-- that's BOTH "Alfred Beagle"s from the 1943 and 1949 BATMAN films. (Austin plays a confused passery-by, Wilton plays Lady Cunningham's butler!)
(1-27-2022 / 4-6-2024)