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!)
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.
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!)
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.