[The Australian Panther]

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!

[The Australian Panther]

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.

[profh0011]

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!"

[profh0011]

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.

[profh0011]

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.

[profh0011]

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.)

[profh0011]

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.

[gregjh]

profh0011, will you also be watching the newer Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch?

[profh0011]

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.

[The Australian Panther]

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!


         

[profh0011]

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!)

[Robb_K]

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.

[The Australian Panther]

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!

[profh0011]

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.)

[profh0011]

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)

[The Australian Panther]

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! 

[profh0011]

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.

[profh0011]

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).

[profh0011]

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.

[profh0011]

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.

[profh0011]

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!

[profh0011]

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

[The Australian Panther]

Prof, Thank you!

[profh0011]

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?

[profh0011]

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