preview

1939 Compare And Contrast

Satisfactory Essays

I prefer the 1939 film adaption of The Hound of the Baskervilles better than the 2002 film adaptation because it is more appropriate, and sticks to the novel. The 1939 film adaptation was less violent and definitely less gory. I personally don’t think that violence and gore are necessary in order to get the point across. The 1939 film adaptation, featuring Basil Rathbone as Holmes, was more suspenseful than the 2002 television movie. I feel like the definition “scary” of movies nowadays is because they have a lot of violence and gore. In the classical movie era, “scary” was suspenseful (Alfred Hitchcock, Bogie and Bacall). In the late sixties, the rating system developed. That signified the end of classical movies and the introduction to the “new and improved (not)” movie. Rotten Tomatoes, the biggest movie base rates almost all movies from 0-100. The 1939 film adaptation has an 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Other films with an 100% include, All About Eve, (Bette Davis, Celeste Holm) The Band Wagon, (Fred Astaire, Cyd Charisse) and Silk Stockings (Fred Astaire, Cyd Charisse). To give that some perspective, The Hunger Games has an 84%, The Hobbit has a 59%, Harry Potter has a 91%. Notice as a pattern, the older a movie gets, the higher the rating. The Princess Bride has a 97%. I guess my point is that the older movies are more appropriate. The 1939 adaptation is Not Rated. That means there is no need for it to be rated. There is no bad material. So you would be like, “The 2002 movie would be G. Right?” Not! It is a television movie so it has no Rotten Tomatoes rating, but it is rated 15 in England. …show more content…

Beryl Stapleton however, didn’t know the her brother was doing all of those bad things to her fiance. She didn’t die at the end of the old movie. The Man on the Tor did not exist in the old version. Instead, Holmes just dressed up as an old pedlar. The characters of Laura Lyons and Cartwright were totally cut out of both

Get Access