Der Hund von Baskerville (1914) User Reviews

Good but not great

[dnmotley-635-631172 · 6/10 · 13 February 2019]

This is a typical A-list film for 1914, and not bad in any way. But for the present-day viewer it suffers by comparison with subsequent versions, with their more effective pacing, modern styles of acting, and sound dialog. For enthusiasts of early German silent films, it is certainly worth seeing.

This 1914 version is included, beautifully restored, in the Bonus Features of the 2019 Flicker Alley Blu-ray edition of Der Hund von Baskerville (1929).

A hound without bite

[hnicolella · 11 April 2011]

This first feature length film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes' most famous adventure could almost pass as a parody of the Arthur Conan Doyle story.

The scheming Stapleton, who covets the Baskervilles estate and seeks the life of its new heir, Sir Henry, is revealed as the villain right from the first. The hound-a big, friendly spotted mutt-is about as menacing as Scooby-Doo-and is seen ferociously licking the face of his first victim. When Sir Henry writes to Sherlock Holmes to ask his help in solving the mysterious goings on, Stapleton-tall and lanky-tries to hide behind the small mailbox and grab the letter when the loyal butler Barrymore comes to mail it. When that fails, Stapleton blows up the mailbox! However, knowing that Sir Henry is expecting Holmes, Stapleton disguises himself as the famous detective and shows up at Baskerville Hall (The fake Holmes and the real Holmes are sometimes played by the same actor)

Meanwhile the real Holmes reads an article in the newspaper that tells how Sherlock Holmes is investigating the Hound of the Baskervilles legend. After consulting with Watson (who disappears from the picture after his one brief scene), Holmes secretly scouts around the Baskerville estate to see what's going on. Stapleton makes several attempts on Sir Henry's life but Holmes foils them all, depending more on his trusty revolver than any powers of deduction: he shoots the fuse off a bomb planted in a chandelier and later shatters a glass of poisoned wine held in Sir Henry's hand. Ultimately, he plugs the poor old Hound himself after Stapleton traps him in the beast's underground lair. At the end, Holmes disguises himself as Stapleton and confronts the villain (still disguised as Holmes) in a particularly laughable finale which includes some assistance from Barrymore wearing a suit of armor!

The great Karl Freund's careful compositions and camera-work are the film's only saving graces. There's a particularly nice long shot on a hillside, done in silhouette, showing Stapleton letting the Hound loose. Critics at the time decried the film's lack of adherence to the book but it was a big hit and spawned a whole series of semi-sequels in which Stapleton functions as a kind of Professor Moriarty, plotting against Holmes and still trying to do in Sir Henry.

Comic?

[boblipton · 4/10 · 18 July 2020]

Normally I begin my reviews by giving my readers an idea of the set-up of the movie's plot. I won't do that here, because the novel it is based on is very well known, and has been adapted to the movie and television screens so many times. Also, this version has almost nothing to do with the story.

What can you usefully say about a version of a classic Sherlock Holmes story in which the villain masquerades as Holmes, Holmes doesn't show up until 28 minutes into its 65-minute length, where Watson appears just long enough to be dismissed, where the dread Hound is a slobbery, affectionate Great Dane, and Baskerville, stated to be in Devonshire, is populated by ghillies in the sma' kilt and tam? The villain is also liberally supplied with bombs that look like cricket balls, which he uses to blow up a mail box. Horrors!

Some people think this is a humorous version of the story. I think it is inept. Screenwriter Richard Oswald, in his first screen credit, adapts a stage version he had produced five years earlier, full of secret passages and chairs that trap whoever sits in them. It's clear to me that Oswald was simply trading on the name and good will of Sherlock Holmes, and director Rudolf Meinert has no more clue about what he is directing than a pig has of calculus.

One of the reasons that Holmes remains a popular media character more than 130 years after his introduction, is that he first appeared shortly before the birth of the movies; by 1906, the Danes were producing a series of films about him, and his reputation as The Great Detective remains because of the wit, clean writing, and classic mystery structure that Arthur Conan Doyle provided. This one, however, adds almost nothing to the legend. There's some nice camerawork, but that's about it.