THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1972)

Here's a sort of a bonus entry to my recent series of posts about the Sherlock Holmes films of Basil Rathbone. In 1972, ABC made three TV movies as pilots for a series that would have rotated different detectives including Hildegarde Withers (heroine of a series of B-films in the 1930s), Nick Carter (hero of a pulp fiction series and three films in 1939 and 1940), and Sherlock Holmes. The series never happened but the films were broadcast, and this was the first. Stewart Granger played Holmes and Bernard Fox was Watson. Granger was a British actor who came to Hollywood in 1950 and specialized in period and adventure films (King Solomon's Mines, Scaramouche). Fox, also British, had a long career as a character actor, best remembered as Dr. Bombay in the Bewitched TV series). This version, the first American Holmes film in color, begins with Holmes seen in silhouette with his pipe and deerstalker hat as Watson narrates, beginning with a flashback to 1762 as the wealthy Hugo Baskerville kidnaps the daughter of a man who owes him money. During drunken carousing, the abused woman escapes the castle and runs across the nighttime moors. Hugo gives chase, but a demonic hound that glows in the dark (a very good effect) kills him, and Baskerville men have been cursed ever since. Dr. Mortimer (Anthony Zerbe) comes to see Holmes after the latest Baskerville has died on the moors with hound prints nearby. He is concerned because the heir, Henry, is coming from Canada to run the estate, despite advice not to. He doesn't quite believe in the curse, and neither does Holmes, but clearly something sinister is afoot. From this point on, the film follows the 1939 plot to a tee, so you can read the summary in my post. 

Reviewers on IMDb do not like this film, mostly because of its 70's TV-movie limitations. It's silly to carp too much about such things as cheap sets and costumes and models and post-dubbing since those elements are baked into films made for TV (or video). I think the sets are effective enough, and the hound appearance (at right) early on is better than in the 1939 film—maybe just because it's in color. It's also very silly to complain about ways in which this differs from the Doyle story when virtually all dramatizations have done so. (As noted above, this seems to be directly based on the Rathbone film, not Doyle.) There are complaints about acting which are perhaps more applicable, though I find the actors here to be more than adequate. Granger doesn't get much respect as Holmes. I'm not really a fan of the actor, but he seems fine here. I think his biggest problem is that he's not particularly distinctive, as the movie itself really adds nothing new to the story, but I would have watched his series if it had been produced. Bernard Fox is a bit better as Watson, though he benefits from doing some subtle channeling of Nigel Bruce in terms of distracted hesitation. Zerbe is good as the doctor, keeping us in a bit of suspense as to his motives. William Shatner, a couple of years after Star Trek, is very good as Stapleton, a Baskerville neighbor, and I wish he'd gotten more screen time.  The two main women in the cast, Jane Merrow (whom I never would have recognized as being Alais in The Lion in Winter) and Sally Ann Howes (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) are not up to snuff but that may be more due to the writing. I liked Ian Ireland, unknown to me before this, as Henry, and it's nice to see the esteemed British actor John Williams (the inspector in Dial M for Murder) in a small role. I'm in the process of digging up the other two mystery pilots and hope to report back on those soon. My final verdict: harmless and even enjoyable. Recommended if you can get past TV-movie prejudices. Pictured at top left are Fox and Granger. [YouTube]