#563: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)
Hammer’s only Holmes flick is a spooky classic
Initial release: May 4th, 1959
Director: Terence Fisher
In the annals of mid-century horror, there are a few names that keep popping up in any discussion of the greatest horror filmmakers. Roger Corman, the cheapest man in Hollywood, showed that you could crank out schlockbuster after schlockbuster on a budget. Mario Bava practically invented an entire subgenre. And Terence Fisher? Terence Fisher is Hammer Horror. He was the man behind Hammer’s revival of gothic horror classics, once the domain of Universal Studios — Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, even the Wolf Man. And, for one shining moment in the late fifties, he brought an unlikely figure to the Hammer Horror canon: Sherlock Holmes, in the 1959 adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles.
Peter Cushing is our beloved Sherlock, character actor André Morell is Watson, and a very young Christopher Lee is Sir Henry Baskerville, last heir to the Baskerville estate and the target of an old curse placed upon the family. When Henry’s uncle Charles passes away under mysterious circumstances, the family physician hires a mildly disinterested Sherlock to protect Henry, returning from overseas to take up the family mantle. Ever since the wicked, evil days of Sir Hugo Baskerville in 1740, the family has supposedly been cursed, haunted by a monstrous hound that lurks the moors of southwest England. But the more Sherlock digs the more things aren’t what they seem…
Arthur Conan Doyle didn’t really dabble in gothic horror for Holmes; Hound is about as close as it gets for him, and Fisher’s adaptation really leans into this, with an emphasis on deep shadows, scary moments like an original scene with a tarantula, and a more sinister villain. This is a Hammer Horror film through and through — big clunky sound stages, often mediocre lighting, day-for-night shots, and workmanlike cinematography. Movies from this era typically live and die on their scripts and effects, and Hound is no different. What elevates this film from ordinary schlock is Peter Cushing. An undeniable Holmes fan, he took on the role with gusto, bringing Sherlock to life with his use of props and daring to edit the script to better fill out the character. While Basil Rathbone might be a more iconic Sherlock, I think Cushing was by far the better one. And Morell is a competent Watson, wanting to step away from Nigel Bruce’s more bumbling interpretation and bring back the straight-shooting military veteran from the books. Lee, for his part, is no slouch either, his Henry an almost decent kind of guy for landed gentry, though he lacks the kind of presence he did in his role as Dracula.
This was Hammer’s only Sherlock film. For one reason or another, the movie didn’t do as well as Hammer would have hoped, despite decent showings at the box office. While Cushing and Morell were praised for how well they embodied their roles, the film overall was seen by critics, perhaps rightfully, as schlock. But what else is Hammer good at besides schlock? They knew their strengths as surely as I know the back of my hand. Despite their reputation as an assembly line for cheap horror flicks, they’ve put out some great movies — nothing that would elevate the form, perhaps, but great movies nonetheless. And I suppose if nothing else, Hound was the ideal Sherlock story for Hammer, the one canonical story that most closely blends a straightforward detective story with elements of the supernatural, a kind of Victorian Scooby Doo where the threat was mundane all along but no less spooky with the distant howls and genuine mortal danger it poses.
While purists might balk at the additions and changes to the story — such as a moment where Sherlock gets momentarily trapped in a mine cave-in — this is probably the definitive adaptation of the Baskerville story, if only because Cushing is just so damned good at being Sherlock. It’s a fine work of classic mid-century horror schlock and it knows it, and really, what more could you ask for?
