As recent blockbuster movies and revisionist TV series have proved, Sherlock Holmes is a character that just won’t die. While other Victorian characters have either faded into obscurity or else been subject to sporadic revivals, Holmes has remained consistently popular and subject to new adaptations, be they determinedly authentic or determinedly inauthentic – only Dracula comes close, and even the Count has not had the recent popularity of the Master Detective.

Still, it remains a bit strange to discover that Sherlock Holmes, the archetype of English class-based mystery, would be so popular in the Soviet Union. Yet he was, and the early 1980s saw a Russian TV series based on the stories, of which this is a part. Seen now, through English eyes, it’s a bit of a curio – like Japanese pop music, it manages to be both an authentic adaptation and a rather eccentric reinterpretation of the most famous Holmes story.

In fact, so well known is Hound of the Baskervilles – for years, to ‘go-to’ Holmes tale if you planned the single adaptation – that I won’t waste time on a synopsis. Suffice to say that unlike the classic 1959 Hammer version, but in common with most other adaptations of the story, this sticks fairly closely to the source material for the main narrative. It’s the little things that make it a rather oddball version and allow the story to be stretched to 145 minutes.

Vasili Livanov makes for an interesting Holmes – less tortured than Jeremy Brett was around the same time in the UK, less hyper than Basil Rathbone and less driven than Peter Cushing, he is laid back, good humoured and easy going – quite an interesting interpretation. Unfortunately, as Hound… is the story in which Holmes is absent for most of the action, we don’t get to explore his character very much in this tale. Vitali Solomin, as Dr Watson, has to carry much of the story, and does so well – a smart, stoic Watson, he sometimes seems a little strait-laced, but he does a good job.

The remaining characters are a parade of bizarre eccentrics. Sir Henry Baskerville (Nikita Mihalkov) would seem to have spent his time in Canada living as Grizzly Adams, given his fur coats and general mountain man style (he’s ruggedly handsome in a very Russian interpretation of ruggedly handsome, with a big moustache) – yet spends his time here as a comic character, usually drunk, always scared and having a constant battle with his servants The Barrymores (Aleksandr Adabashyan and Svetlana Kryuchkova), as they continually serve him porridge at every meal. This, plus a milking of the couple’s relationship with escaped convict Seldon, certainly pads out the story, but it’s an unconvincing extension.

Equally oddball is Evgeny Steblov as Dr Mortimer, who plays his part with such twitchy weirdness that, if you didn’t already know the story, you would certainly have him as a prime suspect in the killings. It’s a fascinating portrayal, but not a very successful one. However, the element of mystery is shot quite a bit before the end of the film, as Holmes calmly exposes the identity of the true criminal early on. I’ll admit to not having read the original tale in many years, so I can’t say how accurate this is – but most film versions have sensibly kept this back as a big reveal for the end, and here it seems almost thrown away.

But these odd moments and characterisations aside, this is a handsomely mounted piece. The locations are a curious mix of convincingly English and very clearly Russian, but there is no faulting the production values of the film as a whole, and if director Igor Maslennikov isn’t exactly an innovator, he at least ensures that the story is told effectively – and the hound itself is possibly the most impressive I’ve seen, a genuine hell hound that you can easily imagine scaring people to death.

Not, perhaps, essential Holmes then. But as a curio for fans, this is certainly worth a look.

DAVID FLINT

BUY IT NOW (UK)