Review: The Hound of the Baskervilles

Years ago, Sir Hugo Baskerville (an enjoyably hammy David Oxley) was said to have been murdered by the ghostly hound of the film’s title. Ever since, the hound has been attributed to the deaths of every Baskerville heir. Now, Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cushing) and Dr. Watson (Andre Morell) are asked by Dr. Mortimer (Francis De Wolff) to investigate this mysterious and possibly supernatural family legacy before it also claims the life of current heir to the Baskerville estate, Sir Henry (Christopher Lee). Ewan Solon and Marla Landi play Sir Henry’s neighbours, Miles Malleson plays the tarantula-loving local Bishop, and John Le Mesurier is suitably frightened as a butler.

 

Hammer does Holmes with this 1959 film from director Terence Fisher (“The Horror of Dracula”, “The Mummy”, “The Devil Rides Out”) and screenwriter Peter Bryan (“The Brides of Dracula”, “The Blood Beast Terror”). It’s a real classy effort all round, particularly in terms of atmosphere and visual aesthetics. The score by James Bernard (“The Horror of Dracula”, “The Devil Rides Out”) is excellent, and for me Peter Cushing is an ideal Sherlock Holmes. Others may disagree and might prefer Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone, but Cushing was my first Holmes, and seems just right for the part. If you enjoy his turns as Prof. Van Helsing, you’ll enjoy his Holmes as it’s quite a similar characterisation. He’s dashing and lively, and most importantly of all – very intelligent. There’s no seven percent solution here, so that might disappoint Arthur Conan Doyle purists. Otherwise I think he fits the bill perfectly, and I’ve never liked the drug aspect to the character anyway.

 

Andre Morell is more than fine as Watson, though I prefer Patrick Macnee, Colin Blakely, or Nigel Bruce. I don’t think Watson is as interesting here as in some other films, through no real fault of Morell’s. That said, some might appreciate Morell’s less comic take on the role. The supporting cast here is outstanding, as there isn’t a dud performance in the film. Especially fine are Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville (one of his non-villain parts), the very dour and serious Ewan Solon, and colourful roles for Francis De Wolff, a hammy David Oxley, and a scene-stealing Miles Malleson. The latter’s role is extraneous, but the actor is such a delight on screen you don’t care.

 

If there’s a problem with the film that stops it from truly soaring – and there is – it’s that Cushing disappears for too long a stretch of the film where Morell’s Dr. Watson has to be front and centre. As I said, Morell is a good Watson but the character isn’t especially compelling, whereas Cushing is absolutely brilliant as Holmes, who is clearly the more interesting and important character. His absence is felt terribly much. As for the title hound, some people think it looks crap, I think it looks suitably nasty and hellish.

 

Cinematographer Jack Asher (“The Horror of Dracula”, “The Mummy”, “The Man Who Could Cheat Death”), composer James Bernard, and the production design crew really earn their keep in this wonderfully atmospheric, great looking and sounding film. It’s a classy adaptation, albeit it helps to be more of a Hammer fan than an Arthur Conan Doyle fan here, perhaps. Peter Cushing is an outstanding Holmes, it’s a shame he takes a mid-movie nap. A solid movie that could’ve been even better with more of its main character.

 

Rating: B-