The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

Hound of the Baskervilles

By 1959, Hammer Films was on a high.  Their Frankenstein and Dracula franchises were smash hits and it looked like the little British company could do no wrong.  But the studio was trying to be smart; and think ahead. They knew they wouldn't be able to rely on horror forever, and they began to look into other genres.  They found an obvious answer in the world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes.

This seemed like a no brainer.  The material was a perfect fit for director Terence Young and stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Andre Morell, and Holmes' greatest adventure, The Hound of the Baskervilles, even had a heavy horror element to it, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Hammer to start their foray into detective films with this storyline.

The plot is fairly simple.  Sir Hugo Baskerville has just been killed mysteriously out on the moors near his manor, and the primary suspect is the ghost of a demon hound that has cursed the family for generations.  Sir Hugo's son, Henry (Lee) returns to Baskerville Hall to claim his inheritance, but he doesn't come alone.  The mystery of Sir Hugo's death and the demon hound has piqued the interest of Sherlock Holmes (Cushing) and his partner, Dr. Watson (Morell), and the two arrive in the moors to prevent the same gruesome fate from happening to Sir Henry.

Is The Hound of the Baskervilles as good as Horror of Dracula or other Hammer classics?  No, not really, but it is still a solid film and a good take on the character.  As Hammer rightly believed, this material is perfect for their inhouse cast and crew.  Cushing is a great Holmes, playing up the eccentricity without going overboard, and Morell is a terrific Watson.  Watson has a lot to do in this film as there are great stretches of time where Holmes is nowhere to be found, leaving Watson with the difficult task of protecting Henry himself.  Morell puts in great work, trying to keep one eye on Henry while keeping the other eye open for clues for Holmes.  He's quite the detective himself, even if he isn't as quick as Holmes.  Meanwhile, Lee brings just the right amount of aristocratic authority to his Henry, though I have to admit it is a bit strange seeing him as a good guy.  And Terence Fisher is a great choice of director, creating an eerie sense of atmosphere with beautiful mists and saturated colors.  All in all, this is a solid and entertaining film.

So it is strange to me that The Hound of the Baskervilles was a disappointment at the box office!  While not as good as Hammer's classics, it is still a lot better than a good chunk of the company's catalog, including The Mummy, which came out the same year and was an unqualified success.  I'm just not sure why this movie didn't do well.  The studio thought it was because audiences only wanted monsters, not detectives.  I've also read that audiences still closely connected the role of Holmes with Basil Rathbone, so maybe they were unwilling to accept a new actor in the role, no matter how good he was.  Either way, it is very strange to me.

I think it is time for The Hound of Baskervilles to get a second lease on life!  I want everyone who likes Sherlock Holmes or Hammer Films to go out and rent this movie!  I think you will enjoy it.  It is not a classic by any means, it is still an entertaining film and deserves more attention than it received in 1959.

MVP:
I have to go back to Peter Cushing. I love this guy!  If you want to see how versatile an actor he is, look no further than 1958 and 1959, when he played the Van Helsing, Victor Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, and even the romantic lead in The Mummy.  He is not a flashy actor who calls attention to himself, but each of these performances are remarkably different.  He was a great actor, and I very much enjoyed his take on the iconic detective.  He may not be the best Holmes - he doesn't quite reach the level of Jeremy Brett, Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey, Jr. (I don't care what Holmes purists say, I really like Downey in the role!), but Cushing is still a grand Holmes and certainly the best thing about this movie. An easy MVP, I say!

TRIVIA: 
Hammer was so confident that The Hound of the Baskervilles would be a hit that plans were already being laid to continue the franchise.  Cushing, who loved the role, was especially excited. Alas, when the film underperformed, the franchise was canceled.

BEST LINE:

Holmes: "Now would you mind sorting out a large scale map of Dartmoor, my dear fellow, while I go and find some more tobacco.  This, I think, is a two pipe problem."

The Sandpiper

The Sandpiper

The Sandpiper isn't very good.  It's reputation is pretty awful and was seen as a cash grab by the studio to get Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in another movie during the height of their fame and notoriety.  Even Burton and Taylor admited it wasn't very good.  So why did I watch it?  Well, I took one look at the cast and crew and thought, could it really be that bad?  Taylor is hit or miss with me, but I do like Burton.  The cast included Charles Bronson (Death Wish) and Eva Marie Saint (North by Northwest).  The director was Oscar-winning Vincente Minnelli (Gigi) and the script was written by two superb screenwriters, Dalton Trumbo (Spartacus) and Michael Wilson (The Bridge of River Kwai).  Plus, the movie had a small role for Peter O'Toole, who is one of my favorite actors.  With all that talent involved, I wondered could The Sandpiper really be that bad? 

Yep.  It sure is. 

So Elizabeth Taylor is Laura Reynolds, a free spirit, sort of a hippy painter who is broke, but can still afford to live in a sweet pad by the beach.  Her son is a bit of an odd duck and gets in trouble with the law.  Over her objections, the local judge forces him to be enrolled in a Boys School which is run by a Protestant priest, Dr. Edward Hewitt (Burton) and his wife, the patient and understanding Claire (Saint).  Well, despite the fact that they have nothing in common and have almost no chemistry (strange considering the actors' passionate off-screen life), Hewitt and Reynolds start an affair.  And...well, not much happens.  Everyone just talks about stuff, we follow the obvious motions of the affair being discovered and its aftermath and then the movie just kinda ends.  The storyline is a bit odd, without the usual ebb and flow that a standard narrative should have.  The movie doesn't even really have a climax.  It just ambles along in the same meandering pace all the way through and then the credits roll.  I guess that is my way of saying the movie is boring.  If that wasn't clear, allow me to reiterate: THIS MOVIE IS SO BORING!!!

It's not even that there is anything wrong with the movie, per se.  It's just dull. For a wild and free spirit, Laura Reynolds is pretty dull.  Oh, they try to liven her up by giving her some speeches about the women's lib movement, but they are all sleep inducing.  Her love scenes with Burton, when she is forced to say brilliant lines like, 'is this love...is this what married people feel?" aren't any better.  Eek.  Burton does what he can, but he even has trouble.  Minnelli doesn't have a handle on the direction, and I don't know what Trumbo and Wilson were thinking when they put pen to paper.  This is just a bad and dull movie.

And I can't help but think that it must have been uncomfortable to make.  Taylor and Burton were the Brangelina of their day...even bigger, actually.  After all, the Taylor-Burton affair was so notorious that the Vatican condemned them and there was a (unsuccessful) motion in Congress to stop such immoral people from returning to the United States.  So why would Burton make a film about a character who cheats on his patient and awesome wife when that is pretty much what he did in real life to his wife Sybil?  I don't think Elizabeth Taylor would have cared.  She got her man, after all.  But Burton was racked with guilt in real life, at least in the beginning before the divorce proceedings were finalized.  Why would he make this movie?  Was this some sort of penance for him?

Anyway, that leads me to one other thing.  Where the hell was Peter O'Toole!!?  He was supposedly in the beach party scene, which I watched five times and can't find him. And that was enough for IMDB to list him in the cast?  And if you look at most movie books or in the TV Guide, you will see O'Toole gets third billing after Taylor and Burton.  What?!?!?!  Maybe he should get MVP just because he had the good sense to not show his face in this piece of crap.

BEST LINE:

Well, here's an amusing way to take the fun out of graffiti...here's Dr. Hewitt chastising two students...

Dr. Hewitt: Our English tongue has a long history and I am pleased with your interest in its oldest and most...ardent words.  I think it sad, however, that these ancient words should be degraded to a position on lavatory walls.  You will scrub the walls down, of course, and then you will learn the equivalent words in German, French and Latin, after which you will decline each noun and congregate each verb in all tenses, including the subjunctive. 


MVP:
I am going to go with Robert Webber, a former lover of Laura's who just happens to be a member of the school board.  He is a confidant, dapper, egotistical, and the only interesting character in the movie.  He definitely subscribes to "The Guy Code" and doesn't reveal the affair, but isn't above trying to get in on the action himself.  That's just dirty.  But his bravado is way more interesting to watch then everything else going on.  He seems to be an early role model for Don Draper...I wonder if the Mad Men producers watched this movie when they were developing that show...

TRIVIA:
An unknown Raquel Welch doubled for Elizabeth Taylor for some of the beach scenes. 

Cuba

Cuba

Cuba is just plain awful.  There is no other way to say it.  It's just a terrible, terrible film.  But it is also a good example of how awesome Sean Connery is and why he is one of the greatest movie stars in Hollywood history.

I will explain why later.  But first, let's talk a bit about this mess of a film.  Cuba follows the last days of the Batista presidency in Cuba, just as the revolution led by Fidel Castro is gaining real momentum. Realizing they are losing the war, Batista's generals hires badass mercenary Major Robert Dapes (Sean Connery) to help turn the tide against the rebels.  But in a bit of a crazy coincidence, guess who else lives in Cuba?  The answer is Alexandra Lopez (Brooke Adams) with whom Dapes had a passionate affair when he was serving in North Africa a decade earlier...when she was 15 and he was 30, mind you.  So, uh, that is already a bit uncomfortable...but moving on...

Alexandra manages a factory that is in theory run by her no good, philandering husband, Juan Palido (Chris Sarandon, clearly practicing the douchebaggering he would perfect later in his career as Humperdink in Princess Bride).  The factory is a hotbed of revolutionary activity that the movie would have you believe is all because Juan likes sleeping with one of his employees.  And what else is going on here?  Oh, yeah, there is a chubby American businessman (Jack Weston) representing American big business trying to take advantage of economic opportunities in the Cuban upheaval. And then there is a British businessman Donald Skinner (Denholm Elliot) who is in this movie for...I don't even know why he is in this movie.  Elliot is awesome and he's just wasted and I don't even remember any of his scenes except for one funny site gag involving a door...which is admittedly pretty hilarious.  This movie just plain makes no sense.  Apparently, it wasn't making any sense to the cast, either.  The script wasn't finished when they started production...and I actually don't think they ever finished it. This movie is just bizarre, and bizarrely bad.

And it is a shame, because there is some interesting things going on here.  First of all, it is interesting to see the British take on the Cuban Revolution.  Cuba kind of walks this strange tight rope.  It is completely anti-Batista, but not quite anti-American, who just come across as silly and in a bit over their heads.  And certainly Castro's men, who engage in several attacks against innocent civilians, don't come out looking good, either.  In fact, in a way, you could say this movie is pro-British.  The only character who comes out looking good is the British mercenary Dapes...and maybe that is the point.  Maybe this whole movie represents the British rolling their eyes at the whole situation and saying that they are above such shenanigans.  When Dapes arrives in Cuba, he quickly assesses the situation and knows that Castro is going to win.  He really only stays in order to rekindle his affair with Alexandra because well, he is too morally superior to engage in the silly war, even if that is what he was hired to do.  Oh, sure, he makes a few obligatory excursions with the troops, but I think those scenes exist only to reinforce that both sides in the struggle are lame and only Dapes is cool.  So, yeah, maybe this movie is ultimately all about why the United Kingdom is awesome.  

Or maybe I am just trying to force some order into what is otherwise an unorderly, horrifying mess. Take this MAJOR SPOILER for an example.  At the climax of the film, Dapes is captured by the rebels.  They try to engage Dapes in conversation and they are rebuked.  Dapes lets them know that despises them because they aren't real soldiers, they won't fight in real battles, they are terrorists who prey on the innocent civilians and are just generally loathsome human beings.  And then Batista's troops attack...you would think Dapes would be happy that he is about to be rescued...but instead he hijacks a tank and starts attacking Batista's men!!!

What.  The.  Hell.

So basically, Castro won the war because Sean Connery attacked the side he was supposed to be working for?  It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

This movie just sucks.  And with a director like Richard Lester (The Three Musketeers) and such a great cast...there is no excuse for a movie this atrocious.


BEST LINE:

Major Dapes: Why were those people shot?

Captain Ramirez: Perhaps because they were trying to escape.

Major Dapes: From what?

Captain Ramirez: From being shot.


MVP:

As I mentioned earlier, this movie is a great example of why Sean Connery is one of the greatest movie icons of all time.  He actually has had a unique career among Hollywood stars.  Allow me to explain myself: every star has hits and flops on their resume.  But if you take James Bond out of the picture, then Sean Connery's ratio of hits and misses is absurdly unbalanced.  If any other actor had made Zardoz, Meteor, First Knight, Shalako, and Sword of the Valiant, his career would have gone down in flames.  But Sean Connery not only survived.  He thrived.  And no matter how bad the movie was, it never seemed to affect anyone's opinion of him.  Unlike any actor I know, his persona existed separately from the body of his work.  His awesomeness was so awesome that...well, it didn't matter how many movies like Cuba he made...people were going to love him anyway.  Because he is Sean Connery.  And even in this trash, he elevates above it all with his badassness.  He really does fill a unique place in Hollywood history.  And it sort of makes him the automatic MVP in any film he is in...

For those who aren't sure they agree with my theory, just look at his filmography on IMDB.  He has a handful of movies that performed decently at the box office (Rising Sun, Entrapment, The Wind and the Lion) and he has a couple of movies that are genuinely good but flopped for some reason (Robin and Marian).  But when you remove James Bond, how many blockbusters are there?  Murder on the Orient Express and A Bridge Too Far, but he only had a small role in both.   Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and The Untouchables, but he is in a supporting role in those (even if he is easily the best thing in both those films).  Hell, technically he is even the second lead in The Hunt for Red October and The Rock, even though he was clearly the major draw for both those films.  That leaves us with...wait, what does that leave us with?  Nothing else really...that's it.  Those are his big hits. And it doesn't matter.  Because nobody cares.  Because Sean Connery is that amazing.  Has any other actor achieved such status?  It's remarkable.  In a way, it makes me like Connery even more!

Anyway, that's a long winded way of saying he is MVP.

TRIVIA:

As the production could not film in Cuba, the majority of the filming took place in Spain.

Harry Brown

Harry Brown

Now here is a nice return to form!  Michael Caine is one of the greats, but age has kept him from starring in as many films these days.  I'm sure the selection isn't the best either for actors his age, no matter how talented.  Thank goodness for Christopher Nolan who has had the good sense to use Caine in his Batman trilogy, The Prestige, and Inception.  But as great as Caine is in these movies, his roles are supporting.  I think an actor of his caliber still has the goods to carry his own movie; we just need a director willing to give it a go.

Enter Daniel Barber and Harry Brown.  Sort of a pensioner version of Death Wish, Harry Brown is about Harry, a retired Korean war veteran living in a gang-ridden English slum.  Harry is not doing so well.  Recently widowed, he walks around his neighborhood like a ghost, waiting for his emphezema to finish him off.  At least he has a good friend in Leonard (David Bradley), but even their conversations aren't very peachy.  The gang problem in the neighborhood is getting worse, and Leonard is getting pushed around.  The old man wants to strike back.  Harry advises him not to.  But when Leonard is brutally murdered, enough is enough.  Harry might be in his 70s, but it is time to take back the neighborhood.

This might sound silly, but the film gets a lot right.  First of all, Harry never acts younger than he is.  In a Hollywood version, Harry would be able to take on some of these youngsters in a real fight.  While watching older folks kick butt can make for a fun movie (hello, Expendables!), it's hardly realistic.  And Harry Brown takes a very real approach.  If you were 70, and trying to figure out how to kill everyone in the local gang, how would you go about doing it?  It's a good question, and one that Harry Brown enjoys answering.

I also admired that fact that the movie admits that Harry might not even be right in his pursuit of vengeance.  Sure, some members of the gang are just plain evil, but the movie doesn't present all of them as cartoon bad guys and admits that these young men could very much be a product of a failed economic system or other societal problems.  The movie makes very clear that one of the kids has been dealing with years of sexual abuse.  Harry doesn't care.  Harry just wants them all dead.  And that makes for an interesting movie. 

Harry Brown is also Daniel Barber's first film, and he directs with a sure hand and a good feel for atmosphere.  I'll have to keep an eye on him as his career continues to develop.  And the acting is quite good along the board.  Caine is ably supported by a great cast including Emily Mortimer and Liam Cunningham, but make no mistake - this is Caine's show and he is nothing short of terrific.  In a different actor's hands, I'm not sure the movie would have worked quite as well.  I think it would have been interesting, but that's about it.  But Caine's performance is so compelling, it completely absorbs us into the storyline. 

Admittedly, the film does kind of fall apart at the end.  For some reason, they felt the need to add a twist which was completely unnecessary.  But apart from the last 10 minutes, this is quality filmmaking, and shows that Caine is still at the top of his game.


BEST LINE:

Detective Frampton: It's not Northern Ireland, Harry.

Harry Brown: No, it isn't.  Those people...were fighting for something, for a cause.  To them out there, it's just entertainment.

MVP:
Hey, there is no doubt.  This is Michael Caine's show.  He dominates this movie, showing us that his acting powers have not diminished.  I'm glad Nolan is keeping Caine in quality films, but other movie producers have to step up, too.  This guy still has it!  Let's get him in more good movies now while we can!!

TRIVIA:
Michael Caine took the role because he saw a lot of himself in Harry Brown.  They were both combat veterans (Caine served in the Korean War) and Caine used to live in the area where Brown does.