#TOOCOOLTUESDAY: UNBOXING HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES BLU RAY FROM TWILIGHT AND COMPETITON

UNBOXING: It's a handsome package! We have EIGHT copies of the TWILIGHT TIME LIMITED EDITION of Hammer films 'The Hound Of The Baskervilles' to give away as PRIZES in our SECOND #SherlockSunday Competition!

THE COMPETITION was launched on SUNDAY 10th of JULY and will remain OPEN until JULY 17th MID DAY GMT! So, still plenty of time to get your entry in! Take a look at the panel below, and then send us YOUR ANSWER to our EMAIL quoted on the Competition Banner! GOOD LUCK!

TAKE A LOOK FOR YOURSELF in our short UNBOXING CLIP, but HERE ARE A RUN DOWN OF THE EXTRAS:

CONTENTS AND TECH SPEC:
Blu Ray Video: 1080p High Definition / 1.66:1 / Color. Subtitles: English SDH. Runtime: 86 Minutes. It's good news for everyone because this release is REGION FREE! And here are those GREAT EXTRAS: Special Features: Isolated Music & Effects Track / Audio Commentary with Film Historians David Del Valle and Steven Peros / Audio Commentary with Film Historians Paul Scrabo, Lee Pfeiffer, and Hank Reineke / Actor's Notebook: Christopher Lee / Hound Mask Creator Margaret Robinson on The Hound of the Baskervilles / Christopher Lee Reads Excerpts from The Hound of the Baskervilles / Original Theatrical Trailer. Limited Edition of just 3,000 Units.

MANY THANKS to TWILIGHT TIME for supplying our prizes and for sponsoring ANOTHER of our competitions: You can PURCHASE YOUR copy of the TWILIGHT TIME LIMITED EDITION BLU RAY : HERE 

THIS YEAR, 2016 marks the 60th anniversary of PCAS, help us celebrate Peter Cushing life and career, by sharing our post on any of our sites.

Facebook Fan Page:HERE  Youtube: HERE  Tumblr:HERE  Website:HERE 

REMEMBERING: NIGEL STOCK

Remembering Today: NIGEL STOCK a superb Watson in the BBC 'Sherlock Holmes' television series of the 60's, with Peter Cushing as Holmes. Sadly, Stock left us in 1986, aged 66....Today would have been his birthday...

BBC 'THE SIGN OF FOUR' starring Peter Cushing and Nigel Stock

review with gallery HERE

PEARLS, POISON DARTS AND MURDER: PETER CUSHING AS SHERLOCK HOLMES IN 'THE SIGN OF FOUR'

A murder and stolen treasure pique the interest of Sherlock Holmes…

The Sign of Four, published in 1890, was the second of four Sherlock Holmes novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  Though not quite so popular and oft referenced as, say, The Hound of the Baskervilles or even some of the short stories, it weaves a pleasingly complex, twist filled tale and has been adapted on numerous occasions.  The first known cinematic adaptation emerged in 1913, under the title Sherlock Holmes Solves The Sign of Four; it is now believed to be a lost film.  Another silent adaptation followed in 1923, as part of the Ellie Norwood series filmed in the UK.  The first sound version was released in 1932 and starred Arthur Wotner, who was arguably the preeminent interpreter of the role on screen until Basil Rathbone inherited the deerstalker in 1939.  Rathbone never had a go at The Sign of Four, and indeed it would remain untouched by producers until this 1968 adaptation for the BBC series, Sherlock Holmes. 

Later versions would hail from as far away as the-then USSR (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson: The Treasures of Agra), and would even include an animated version (1983’s Sherlock Holmes and The Sign of Four, with Peter O’Toole voicing the great detective).  The best versions would later be done for British TV, however – first with Ian Richardson and David Healy as Holmes and Watson (1983), then with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke essaying the roles (1987).  The 1968 version falls decidedly short of the excellence of those later versions, but is still worth seeing for Peter Cushing’s customarily accomplished portrayal of Holmes.

Of the six surviving episodes of Cushing’s tenure on the program, The Sign of Four is easily the weakest.  Part of this is down to the rather stiff, uninspired direction of William Sterling.  There is also trouble in the casting, with few of the actors measuring up to the standards of Cushing’s performance.  Even Cushing, it has to be noted, seems a bit off his game in a few scenes, lending credence to his own later complaint that the shooting schedule was too rushed to allow to him to do his best work.  Even so, it’s still a joy seeing him in the role, and Nigel Stock again proves to be a solid and dependable Watson.

On the downside, the use of a middle aged actor to play Watson works against the romantic subplot which was so crucial to the story.  Watson becomes smitten with the character of Mary Morstan, and indeed – as readers of the stories will be aware – he would later marry her.  This works perfectly well in Doyle’s story, as Watson is rather younger in Doyle’s conception – but the sight of avuncular Stock lusting after pretty Ann Bell comes off as awkward at best, creepy at worst.  Bell – who also costarred with Cushing in Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors (1964) – does a competent job in the role, but she has zero chemistry with Stock, and it’s just as well that his proposal to her at the end of the story was dropped from the screenplay adaptation.  Supporting actor honors go to John Stratton, another familiar face in the Cushing universe (he would go on to play the comically blustering asylum director in Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, 1972), who gives a good account of himself as the clueless and supercilious Inspector Jones.  Howard Goorney, a busy character actor whose credits include The Evil of Frankenstein (1964), Blood on Satan’s Claw (1970) and The Offence (1972), also shows up in a small role.

The Sign of Four is by no means an unmitigated disaster, but it definitely comes up a bit short compared to the other surviving episodes – and it looks very poor indeed compared to the earlier episodes starring Douglas Wilmer as Holmes.  It all comes off as a bit rushed and awkward, lurching in an uneven pace from one talky, prolonged set piece to one all too hurried a bit of action and intrigue.  Cushing gives a game attempt, but there are moments wherein he comes off as a little hammy and theatrical, reminding one of what a delicate balancing act it can be to play Holmes properly on screen.  It’s a difficult role, one which has defeated many fine actors, but happily this particular outing is not indicative of Cushing’s interpretation in general.  But even if he comes off a little poorly in a few scenes, Cushing’s inherent presence and charisma as an actor help to redeem this otherwise disappointing adaptation.

Images: Marcus Brooks
Review: Troy Howarth

Please JOIN US at the official FACEBOOK FAN PAGE of PCAS :HERE 

'HEAR NOW, THE LEGEND OF THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES' PETER CUSHING, ANDRE MORELL : SHERLOCK HOLMES : HAMMER FILMS GALLERY AND REVIEW

Considering that I like the character of Sherlock Holmes so much, it may come as some surprise that I’ve never read a word of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories. My first, and most extensive, contact with Sherlock Holmes comes from the films starring Basil Rathbone as the world’s greatest detective and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. I’m aware that the performances these two gave, and the stories they were involved in, varied (sometimes greatly) from the source material, but I like them all the same.

Because I’m so familiar with the Basil Rathbone versions, it’s always interesting when I get to see another actor’s take on Holmes and another set of filmmakers’ approach to the same basic material. Consequently, when the Hammer Films version of The Hound of the Baskervilles aired on MGM HD — an almost, but not quite, variation on Turner Classic Movies — I jumped at the chance. I happen to have a fondness for Hammer productions, so this was a two-fer.

Hammer is known primarily for its horror output (all those Dracula movies foremost among them), so The Hound of the Baskervilles is something different. It still has a quasi-Gothic feel to it — it takes place primarily in a manor house on a moor, after all — so it’s not as divergent from Hammer’s usual product as all that, but it lacks any supernatural elements and is, basically, a straight-up Sherlock Holmes movie with a few Hammer touches.

The Hound of the Baskervilles has been made into a movie 24 times, so I’m going to lay odds you’ve seen at least one version at some time in your life. Accuracy to the source material varies, I’m sure, so arguments can be made about which is more faithful, but for me these kinds of things boil down to who’s playing Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. I’ve already told you that I favor Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, but in this film we have Peter Cushing and André Morell.

First a quick word about Peter Cushing. I have seen him in other things, most notably as various Van Helsings and Frankensteins in Hammer Films’ other type of movies. Despite all this, the very first thing I think of when I see Peter Cushing is Star Wars. I know it’s unfair to boil an actor down to a single role like that, and it’s equally unfair to Alec Guinness, who likewise had a long and varied career, but Peter Cushing equals Grand Moff Tarkin in my mind. As a result, he had a tough row to hoe when it came to winning me over as Holmes. It may surprise you that it didn’t take long.

Peter Cushing makes a really excellent Sherlock Holmes, and he went on to play the character many times afterward, so I’m not the only one who thought so. He has the almost sneering air of superiority about him that Basil Rathbone did so well, while remaining just likable enough in his brilliance that we can still root for him as the hero. Equally important, André Morell acquits himself quite well as Dr. Watson, something that’s absolutely essential in The Hound of the Baskervilles because Holmes is offscreen for fully one half of the picture.

Morell’s depiction of Watson is completely absent the lovable buffoonery that marks Nigel Bruce’s portrayals of the character and is more in line with (as I understand) his literary roots. Let us not forget that Watson is a decorated war veteran and, while he may not be as gifted intellectually as Holmes, is a medical doctor and partner to the detective. In the whole of this The Hound of the Baskervilles he does precisely one silly thing, which serves as foreshadowing for the demise of one of the other characters.

Story-wise there are differences between this film and the other with which I’m familiar. I consider these the Hammer touches. For example: the Baskerville family apparently suffers under a curse brought upon them by the excesses of an ancestor. In The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939), this information in shared with the audience via good, old-fashioned exposition. In this The Hound of the Baskervilles, we get a prologue set well into the past, where Sir Hugo Baskerville holds a wild party in which murder and rape are on the menu. This is the kind of thing that set Hammer Films apart from, say, Universal’s horror output: the willingness to push the envelope and even feature some (brilliantly colored) blood.

This Hound turns a supporting character into a sultry Spanish temptress, the better to feature her exposed legs and bare feet and bosom to the audience for their titillation, no pun intended. Another supporting character has a grotesque webbed hand. I’m not saying the old Rathbone pictures didn’t have good-looking women in them, or characters with weird traits, but they weren’t quite so in-your-face as these examples are. The difference between making movies in the ’30s versus the ’50s, I expect.

There’s a nice bit of cultural shorthand in The Hound of the Baskervilles that is likewise appropriate to a Hammer film. Christopher Lee — looking tanned, handsome and very aristocratic — plays Sir Henry Baskerville, the latest heir to the Baskerville manor and fortune. While he’s unfailingly polite and gentlemanly, he finds himself nearly out of control with sexual desire when it comes to the aforementioned Spanish temptress, the daughter of one of his neighbors. He presses his sexual attraction on her without an ounce of shame, calling back to a time when the aristocracy were essentially masters of all they surveyed, including the “little people.”

With some exceptions, the mystery plays out pretty much the same as it does in the Rathbone version. I won’t spoil you with the solution to the curse, even though you’ve had over 100 years to read it (I still haven’t), but I will say that the Hammer Films approach to the climax is more violent and, in its way, mean-spirited than the way they handled things in 1939. I’m not saying this is necessarily worse, only that it’s different.

You should check out The Hound of the Baskervilles for a few reasons, including a rare chance to see Christopher Lee playing a good-guy role, and Peter Cushing essaying Sherlock Holmes. The stage-bound, colorful images are an added treat, being as much a Hammer signature as the heaving breasts and blood.

Maybe I’ll actually read the novel now.

REVIEW: Sam Hawken
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks

COMING SOON!

COMING SOON: HEAR FROM THE WOMAN WHO MADE THE HOUNDS MASK ...MARGARET ROBINSON, WIFE OF HAMMER FILMS PRODUCTION DESIGNER, BERNARD ROBINSON, IN A 1980 INTERVIEW ON THE BLACKBOXCLUB.COM PODCAST SOON!