From the 1950s through the 1970s and beyond,Hammer Studiosproduced scores of interesting films. Some remain wildly erratic (undoubtedly part of the Hammer charm), while others are steeped in dank, creepy atmospheres that grab ahold of the viewer — suffusing the air with dread. The height of the Hammer era was a fascinating time in cinematic history, and many of the films from this period have since been restored and re-released to the utter delight of fans and horror completists alike. Earlier Hammer productions were characterized by their literariness, distinctive set design and art direction (often made on a budget), colorful ensemble casts brimming with character actors, and generally chilly moods. Often, the threat was supernatural, and sometimes, the horror spawned from something more everyday. The personalities behind the pictures were typically fierce creative forces who took chances, with sanguine imagery, and storied productions (some films were shot back-to-back using the same sets for efficiency). The world of Hammer is truly a captivating one to step into!
While the Dracula iterations are perhaps the highest-profile Hammer pictures today, there are innumerable lurid (more often than not heavily gothic) films to dig into, withTerence Fisher’s mist-wreathed 1959 adaptation ofArthur Conan Doyle’s classic Sherlock Holmes storyThe House of the Baskervillesamong the very best of the lot. It is arguably the magnum opus of its director’s career. Fisher was a horror auteur and made several other good Hammer films, including manyChristopher Lee-starringDracula outings,The Curse of the Werewolf,The Gorgon, andThe Devil Rides Out.He also didIsland of Terrorwhich had a very Hammer-y vibe to it.The Hound of the Baskervillesis one of the perfect exemplars of what makes Hammer great — it is affectionately over-the-top at times while never surrendering its completely entrancing, gothic-infused whodunit atmosphere. Fisher’s excellentDracula: Prince of Darknessis perhapsHound’sclosest rival in terms of its high standing, but this Holmes interpretation is a must-see for fans of the deductive detective, andPeter Cushingis a major asset in rendering the classic character cerebral and icily determined. As far as movies made on the iconic pip-smoking sleuth go, this one sits right near the very top.
RELATED:The Best Adaptation of Each Sherlock Holmes Story
‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ Retains a Dark and Gothic Vibe
“It is essential that I go back to the moor…,” andAndre Morrell’s Dr. Watson does indeed make good on his assertion, venturing back to the mist-enshrouded tract of land that girts the imposing Baskerville manse where he and Holmes are conducting their investigation into the mysterious death of noted personality Sir Charles Baskerville. Baskerville apparently passed from heart failure — however,Francis De Wolff’s Dr. Richard Mortimer thinks otherwise and seeks to engage the services of the wily investigator. From the start, the film is well photographed, composed, and edited, and retains that swirling sense of mystery inherent to all the very best detective films. There’s an unbudging air of menace in and around the forbidding environs of the sprawling homestead, and Peter Cushing’s Holmes is never one to decline a good mystery to unravel. It’s an eerily lit chiller from the opening titles to the end credits and could be the most downright creepy Conan Doyle adaptation ever made.
The opening shots introduce the viewer to the accursed family’s supposed centuries-long bedevilment by the titular beast — and cleverly, Fisher opts to rely on sound effects at first, obscuring the identity of “the hound” for as long as possible before it does eventually appear. It’s a terrific stylistic choice, keeping its chief menacer only partially visible, and goes a long way towards ensuring the film is one of the finest Holmes adventures on screen. Curiosity is always piqued as an array of potentially eldritch characters are introduced over the course of the film’s fairly brief 83-minute runtime, and none feel superfluous. From the fearful butler to the famished (and quite possibly vengeful) inhabitants on the moor, the movie glides from frame to frame and scene to scene with the fluidity of turning pages. Christopher Lee, as Charles' nephew and potentially under-threat heir Sir Henry Baskerville, is always such a stoic presence on screen. The audience doesn’t immediately know whether he is completely innocent, and the circumstances of Baskerville’s death remain suspect irrespective of the rumored involvement of the mythical Hound. When the potential role a walkabout tarantula may have played in Charles' death is discussed, proceedings only become more macabre and interesting. The film’s grimly arresting color palette and haunting visuals hold attention under lock and key.
The Strength of This Sherlock Holmes Adaptation Comes in Its Casting
There have been many strong and well-known Holmes adaptations, and it looks like the versatileRobert Downey Jr.may be donning the distinctive get-up againfor a third outing as the famed sleuth. Cushing was a Hammer casting favorite for good reason. Equally at home playing a Dracula slayer, or an everyman caught up in something terrifying, he imbues the role with such iron-willed placidity and unflappable intelligence, one feels like he has wandered straight out of the book. He coasts from interaction to interaction, coaxing out admissions and secrets with his unbridled wits. The presence of the legendary Cushing renders the film one of the premier Holmes imaginings.
Likewise, the supporting cast is replete with stalwart performers. Hammer regularAndré Morrell’s Watson is certainly different from theNigel Bruceversion (who played oppositeBasil Rathbone’s Holmes in many incarnations). He is a worthy and resourceful offsider to the detective, and for the first half hour or more, is forced to deputize for Holmes while he is in the city. Morrell was a noted Hammer performer who regularly brought class and gravitas to such films asPlague of the Zombies, andThe Mummy’s Shroud. Much like fellow Hammer regularAndrew Keir, who was great in films such as the aforementionedDracula: Prince of Darkness,Quatermass and the Pitt(a hair-raising classic), andBlood from the Mummy’s Tomb(interestingly also adapted from an early Arthur Conan Doyle short story), Morrell’s presence in a film was a mark of distinction.
The other big name is, of course, Christopher Lee, who pivots away from the fangs and cape of his most famous horror role (alongsideSummerisle inThe Wicker Manperhaps) to play the supporting part of Sir Henry. His character is naive but ultimately well-meaning. Henry becomes smitten with the mysterious daughter (Marla Landi) of farmer Stapleton (Ewen Solon) from the moors and becomes blind to both the lurking dangers in the darkness and the fact that he may have been ensnared. His mere presence emboldens the Hammer feel of the film, and his fate is painful on more than one front. In the end, after learning that “the curse of the hound” is upon him, the errors of his ways are fully exposed and it makes for a shriekingly grandiose finale. In a film filled with characters expertly brought to life, Lee shines yet again.
1959’s ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles Is One of the Best Sherlock Holmes Adaptations Ever
The Hound of the Baskervillesis a roaring success. And as the howls dissipate like passing clouds and the tormentor of the tale is vanquished, the film abruptly concludes via a spot of repartee from the iconic duo. No moment is wasted in this spare adaptation, but by the end, one desperately wishes they could spend a little more time in the world Fisher creates. When the beast is finally revealed to be a real, tangible, fearsome canine, and the genuine cause of the unfurling horrors of the plot — the final moments are genuinely exciting. Cushing returned to the role of the detective on TV in the ’60s but didn’t play Holmes in another Fisher film again, which is a real shame.
With scenes involving a gurgling pit of quicksand and a brief (albeit tame) mauling, the film contains enough memorable sequences to compliment its overall aesthetic and dark atmosphere. In short, it’s a classic, and for Hammer aficionados, essential. There’s been a vast number of strong Holmes adaptations for the large and small screen alike, but as far as retaining that singular gothic mystery verve, the 1959 flick remains close to the cream of the crop. Its creepy, unsettling visual trappings marry up beautifully with its ornate dialogue and occasional flashes of humor. “And so we are left with the moor and the mist” — and it must be said, the moor and the mist at the heart of this iconic tale have seldom been better captured on screen.
