The Hound of the Baskervilles

In London, Sherlock Holmes (Matt Frewer) and Dr. Watson (Kenneth Welsh) are visited by the countryside Dr. Mortimer (Gordon Masten). He tells that Sir Baskerville has officially died of heart attack; however there are rumors and he believes that he was murdered by the notorious devil hound. Dr. Mortimer asks whether Sherlock Holmes would accept to investigate the case and also provide protection against the curse to the heir Sir Henry Baskerville (Jason London). Dr. Watson travels with Dr. Mortimer to meet Sir Henry and protect him while Holmes stays in London. Will they resolve the case?

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" is a Canadian version of the famous novel of the same title made for television. The high quality cinematography and the good screenplay are partially wasted with the unbearable arrogance of Sherlock Holmes performed by Matt Frewer, the worst Sherlock Holmes ever. Jason London is also miscast but his performance is satisfactory. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Demônio do Pântano" ("Demon of the Swamp")

The bad news is, Matt Frewer (whom I have admired in other roles) is APPALLING as Sherlock Holmes -- a mugging, snickering, snide clown who defeats any belief in his intellectual prowess. The good news (well, sort of good) is that he is not on screen much in this way-too-corrupted version of the classic story. This version changed a vicious murderer into an innocent bystander, gave Watson a trendy but unwarranted (according to the literature) aversion to smoke, and skipped over the most telling scene of the book, Watson's confrontation with Holmes in his hidden lair on the moor.

Kenneth Welsh, however, was excellent as Watson within the range allowed him by the script. Jason London was able to overcome the cutesy cowboy role he was stuck with at the beginning to become believable as the Baskerville lord.

As a Sherlock Holmes AND a Matt Frewer fan, I had high expectations for this film, and was badly disappointed.

Not a travesty, this version of Conan-Doyle's most famous and most filmed novella opens in accordance with the printed version, with Matt Frewer as the world's first and only consulting detective, pacing around the room and dramatically throwing off hypotheses about the nature of the recent visitor who has left his walking stick behind. At that, the film limits the number of conclusions drawn by Holmes. (Eg., the breed of DOG that carried the walking stick for its master.)

All of this is attended by Kenneth Welsh as the skeptical Dr. Watson. I hate saying this because I wish all filmic preparations of the canon well. But if there is something tic-y and overripe about Frewer's portrayal of Holmes, there is something impassive and vacant about Welsh's Dr. Watson. He's barely there. Ever.

The movie follows the narrative fairly closely at first, even introducing us to Miss Laura Lyons, typist, whose role is given some importance. She's almost always deleted. The story leaves Conan-Doyle behind at the climax. He may still be struggling in one of those bottomless bogs in the Great Grimpin Mire for all we know. I won't describe it except to say that the hound isn't too terrifying.

The departures from the original narrative do some damage to the film as a whole. Too bad. Grenada TV's version, from the series with Jeremy Britt, is frankly better.

I cannot agree with most of the comments here. Any film version of a Holmes story is going to be a problem - why pick on this one? After all, something of the rather pointed (sometimes uncomfortable) sarcasm of the literary Holmes comes through. No performance is seriously bad in this film; Frewer comes over well, so do the rest. I sometimes wonder if affection for certain film portrayals rather overrides the accuracy of the story - this one was not the worst by a long shot. Utter accuracy is not probable in the film world, so we should, I think, not be all too picky. Even so, the flavour of the stories is one which no director has ever captured, I admit. This film goes some way towards rectifying the matter.

This certainly wasn't the best screen adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles that I've ever seen, but it was okay. I want to know why on earth they cast an American/Canadian actor as Holmes rather than a British one. I mean, really, it's Max Headroom, for crying out loud! And wasn't he also the jock father in Honey I Shrunk the Kids? Why would the director ever even consider him to play Holmes? He wasn't that great. He overacted even more than is expected in a TV movie. And his fake British accent was horrible.

I didn't like how they had Holmes and Watson's relationship portrayed either. The literary Holmes was cold, calculating, and even arrogant at times, yes, but he wasn't deliberately a jerk. This guy was. And the way Watson got an attitude with him afterwards (which, in all honesty, is completely understandable after this Holmes' behavior) made it hard to understand why these two men would be such great "friends" and roomies if Holmes was really such a jerk and Watson resented it so much.

And that poor dog. What did they do to its eyes to make them red like that? I hope it was just CG-ed to make them look like that, because it was obviously a real dog. And what kind of dog was that? It looked smaller than my medium-sized Chow Chow. I mean, I was expecting this big, bear-like Newfoundland mix or something and it was just this scrawny little mutt. It was kind of disappointing. Poor dog.

Other than that, and the obligatory cutting of half the story (which can be understood, as it's a Hallmark TV movie), this movie was fair. It's worth the $8 DVD what has four other Sherlock Holmes movies on it as well, good for a rainy afternoon with nothing better to do. Other than that... Eh, like I said, it was fair.