Avis des utilisateurs

It only took a couple minutes of watching Frewer as Holmes to make me stop watching this film. Holmes is supposed to be arrogant of course, but never before have a seen a Holmes that was snide and belittling of Watson. It was too bad, because the production looked well done. But this version of Holmes was too much for me to take, and I turned it off.

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.

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")

Before I bought the DVD of this version of the "Hound of the Baskervilles" with Matt Frewer playing Holmes, I read the other user comments listed on the IMDB and I have to agree that the script was not very good and in fact, I found it to be somewhat poor in many respects. I also must mention that Jason London's performance as Sir Henry Baskerville was in my opinion dismal. He played the role as if the casting company went out in the street and asked the first guy they came across to please step in and take the role. I would think that Joe Namath could have done better but on the other hand maybe that is what London was trying to do. Maybe London was trying to put into the role such realism as a simple man pulled into a situation as an inheritor to a vast English estate that he played the role with a deadpan delivery of his lines. I wonder.

On the other hand I was delighted with Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes. His physical appearance fit the role well and his particular charactaristics in stage presentation I think added an interesting twist to the Holmes character. As a Sherlockian, I like to see the differences that various actors give to the character. I would have liked to seen more of Frewer's Holmes in this film but the dismal script distorted and shortened the story so that the Holmes character is only seen in the first quarter of the film and then near the end of the film.

In agreement with most of the other comments made on this version, If you are a film buff and a Sherlockian as I am, than this DVD is worth adding to your collection. If you are simply a fan of mystery films perhaps it is better for you to wait for this version to be rerun on TV or if you find it in your video rental store, the film is certainly worth the rental fee.

Trailrider

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 is a fairly pleasant television movie, but nothin spectacular either.

For those familiar with Sherlock Holmes and this famous story, the ending is known from the beginning. For those who haven't read the book, the plot has some nice twists and changes along the way, before coming to the inevitable ending with Holmes saving the day.

If you like low budget murder mystery's give this one a look, but don't expect a gripping version of this story.

OK Matt Frewer is no Jeremy Brett, but l feel there has been a lot of poor remarks about his portrayal of Holmes, l could not fault his accent he dressed well, and you must remember the actors like Charlton Heston and Edward Woodward have played Holmes and no one chastised them.

The story is the same we all know it well, but the photography was stunning, the music added to the overall action, l have to mention the actor who played Watson, superb, a bit like Nigel Bruce from the 40's but not as bumbling, l have been a life long Holmes fan, raised on Basil Rathbone's Holmes, but not until Jeremy Brett has anyone come near the character as Conan Doyle wrote him, but l think Matt Frewer has done a good job and l would recommend anyone to see this film and make their own mind up 7 out of 10

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is another of the dumb Canadian Holmes films starring Matt Frewer. To describe his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes as the worst ever would be a fair statement, I think. He's a gurning buffoon with a laughably dire accent and a kind of fey, foppish personality totally at odds with the calculating character of the Conan Doyle stories. A real dud, in other words.

The only decent performance in this production comes from Kenneth Welsh doing a passable impersonation of Dr Watson. The famous Gothic masterpiece is brought to life in an entirely unconvincing way here, in fact I think this is probably the least realistic of all the filmed versions of the story. The hound itself looks like something out of a cheap B-movie horror flick and the supporting cast give singularly unbelievable performances. What happened to the wonderfully spooky atmosphere of the novel, all of the creepy moments? THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is Holmes-by-numbers, nothing more.

It's the classic story of Sherlock Holmes (Matt Frewer) and his best friend Dr. Watson (Kenneth Welsh) in turn of the century England. A demonic hound is rumored to be terrorizing the countryside which Holmes dismisses. Sir Henry Baskerville (Jason London) convinces them to investigate the death of his uncle Sir Charles Baskerville blamed on the mysterious curse.

This is a Canadian adaptation of the classic tale. The production value is fair for a TV movie. It doesn't have the best style. I'm sure they filmed this in the Canadian countryside which doesn't always have an England vibe. They do a bit of fog and some stone works with small buildings. It's too much forest and too wilderness. It doesn't feel like the moors. Mostly, this rests on the actors. Welsh is more than up to the task. The veteran saves this movie and he has the bigger role. Watson does most of the investigating in this version. Frewer feels a little light in the role. Jason London is too modern in his character. Overall, this is fine but it's nothing special.

I always look forward to a remake of a classic, especially Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work. However, this 2000 movie version of The Hound of the Baskervilles was virtually inauthentic and disappointing.

Sherlock, played by Matt Frewer, had a contrived English accent, was arrogant and frivolous. It was the worst Sherlock rendition. Others also had disingenuous false accents, not genuinely belonging to the period, and, thereby, falsifying and degrading the movie itself. The moors were incorrect and delusive. The voices were slurred and the plot ambiguous at times.

The only saving grace to this remake was Dr. Watson, played by Kenneth Welsh.

The four Sherlock Holmes movies by Hallmark are just good fun versions for kids. Don't even try to take 'em seriously folks. Don't expect them to be artistic masterpieces based on literary classics. These TV movies were made for a family audience and there's plenty of comedy for kids in these things. Frewer's Holmes must be seen to be believed! He's a hoot! He's the most eccentric Holmes EVER! Kids will love this guy! Kenneth Welsh is much more traditional in his role and he makes a very fine Watson. These Frewer Holmes flicks are sure to entertain kids and will hopefully encourage them to read more about The Master Detective. They certainly wont get bored watching any of these with the ultra-intense and comedic Frewer on the screen.

This version was okay to watch, but not to buy and keep in a DVD library. The story line deviations were acceptable, for the most part. Filming and atmosphere were also okay.

Sherlock was played too "over-the-top." He was "in-your-face" SO superior to everyone else. Yes, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was brilliant, but he was also subtle and stylish. Frewer's Sherlock dismissed just about every comment with sarcasm and ridicule. Yes, he was silently plucking out the bits of relevant information that would convince him this was more than just a ghost story, but it was very irritating. Watson's extreme dislike to pipe smoke was more a modern politically correct addition. Please.

Sir Henry was fine. The Barrymores, while trying to be mysterious, seemed wooden. The best character was Stapleton. He was excitable and energetic. He didn't seem to get on my nerves like the energetic Holmes. Maybe it was because his manner didn't openly disrespect everyone else.

The best choice is Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes. His "Hound of the Baskerville's" is definitely a buyer and keeper.

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.

Let me start by saying that I have not read the novel... nor any other by Sir Athur Conan Doyle(although I certainly would like to, in particular those regarding this character... the detective, not the dog), so if you want to know how well this follows it, this is not the place to look, I'm afraid. The plot isn't bad, and it did manage to surprise me more than once(if I would have been if I had looked my way through the book, I couldn't tell you... literally), and it develops reasonably. The pacing is fine. The acting varies, for all concerned... Frewer goes back and forth between what one might call a good performance and what would be more accurately described as a parody of a stereotypical Brit. There aren't really any stand-out players, in either end of the spectrum. The music is adequate. The technical aspects of this are average, and at times below that. The effects probably won't impress anyone. The "hound" is never that terrifying of a sight, and doesn't instill nearly as much fear as indifference. In general this isn't really sufficiently scary as to warrant being noted for it. I recommend this to fans of horror and crime-mystery stories, and/or Matt Frewer, but you are undoubtedly capable of finding more worthy ways to spend 90 minutes. 6/10

In England, circa 1890, Sherlock Holmes (Matt Frewer) and Dr. Watson (Kenneth Welsh) investigate the mysterious death of Sir Charles Baskerville on the Moors, rumored to be rooted in a centuries-old family curse involving a devil-hound. Jason London is on hand as Sir Henry.

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" (2000) is a Hallmark production shot in the Montreal area, but with establishing shots from England (e.g. Montacute House, Montacute, Somerset). The main reason I wanted to see this TV version of the oft-filmed tale is I was in the mood for a Victorian-era mystery with fog, manors, candles, woods, 19th century lasses and the like; and the flick delivers the goods. Sure, it doesn't have the production values of the contemporaneous "Sleepy Hollow" (1999), but that's to be expected.

Frewer's interpretation of Holmes is spirited and amusing. I don't get where critics say his take on the expert sleuth is unappealingly arrogant seeing as how he's too animated and comical to be pompous. The core of the story centers on Watson's investigation at the Baskerville estate with Holmes absent until the final act (although he's on screen for the opening, of course). If you're not familiar with the story you'll constantly be responding "He did it, he did it!" or "She did it, she did it!"

As far as the southern Québec locations go, I prefer them to the (boring) English Moors.

The movie runs 1 hour, 30 minutes.

GRADE: B-

Faithful transposition to the books of the infamous story of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I find no criticisms to make to this movie except a certain slowness. Perhaps due to excessive fidelity to novels. However, it is not memorable despite the commitment that has been put into it.

In some ways this isn't too bad an adaptation, and has a good Watson, though he is too old. But Matt Frewer's Holmes is ridiculously exaggerated. Fortunately he is not on screen much. But there are also tiresome pointless changes from the original novel, and inaccuracies like referring to Baskerville as a lord. And the adaptation is filmed in surroundings that are not nearly bleak enough.

I have seen all of the reviews of this program. First let me say that the original story was NOT a single unit, but was rather run in serial form like a study in scarlet and the sign of four. Any attempts to compare a single flowing movie to an original in serial form is like comparing apples to oranges. This film couldn't possibly be made as presented in serial form.

Next, the character of Holmes is, in the opinion of this dedicated Sherlockian, spot on. Of course Mr. Frewer portrayed him as a bombastic clown, a bull in a china shop, and somewhat clownish. Go back and read the stories! Holmes comes across in the canon as a bull in a china shop. Of all the classic screen portrayals of Holmes, none really got that aspect of Holmes until Frewer's interpretation. Christopher plummer comes close (murder by decree, in a couple of scenes) and Peter Cushing (the chess game at the beginning of the Hammer "hound") and on occasion, Jeremy Brett.

I truly believe that as written, Holmes had a condition that is now known as Asperger's syndrome. (Google this for more information.) I believe this because I have been diagnosed with it. Where Watson sees a bucolic country scene, Holmes sees a perfect opportunity for murder.(Aspergians quite often see the same things as other people, but in a different light...) He focuses to the extreme completely oblivious to to those around him. He bounds over furniture, rudely interrupts people, has very little social skills, but also has one of the keenest minds in literature. (All of these traits are seen in Asperger's people.) No wonder Lestrade hates him!

Frewer brings out all of these components of Holmes in high degree here! So for those of you who misunderstand Frewer's character here, Bravo! You are only normal. I hope Mr. Frewer takes your misunderstandings as a compliment. That means he did his job as an actor! Kudos to him for understanding an often overlooked aspect of Holmes' personality! As to content, the original tale in serialized form captialized on suspense, and timing. I am not quite sure this story would truly worked if published as a whole. (I got the most out of it by buying it in strand magazine facsimile, and closing it when seeing the title page of the next installment and then reading again later, and so on...). The events as described by Conan Doyle are all there, and the age of Henry is unknown anyway, so he could reasonably be played by any person of undetermined age. The fellow here does a fine job in my opinion, as does Watson, who seems a bit older than Holmes, but does a masterful job keeping Holmes' impulsiveness in check.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is one of the, perhaps even THE, most famous Sherlock Holmes stories and is the most adapted. For good reason, it is such a thrilling and scary story and contains a tantalising mystery.

The first of the four Hallmark films starring Matt Frewer doesn't do this wonderful story justice. To me, it's the second worst adaptation with only Peter Cook's being worse and nowhere near in the same league as those of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing. All wonderful, Brett's is my personal favourite with Rathone's a close second (coincidentally they're also my two favourite Holmes), and with vastly superior interpretations of Holmes. Not a complete mess, with a few things stopping it from being a complete dog, but should have been much better.

Kenneth Welsh is the best thing about 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' and the only good actor in the film. He is an excellent Watson and more the faithful interpretation of a loyal and intelligent Watson and not the bumbling buffoon for comic relief purposes.

Also found some of the locations suitably atmospheric, if perhaps not authentic, and the adaptation shot competently enough. The music score is eerie. Credit is due for that the culprit is not revealed too early, a potential trap adapting 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' and has been fallen into a couple of times (i.e. Richard Roxburgh's version).

However, the rest of the cast do not fare well. Matt Frewer doesn't work as Holmes, far too manic and eccentric and his rapport with Watson too abrasive and borderline bullying. Jason London is also miscast, very stiff and too modern. Also found Robin Wilcock's Stapleton, though he does try, too energised and not sinister enough. The rest of the cast while not terrible don't make much impression.

For such a good story, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is poorly adapted here. It's dull thanks to the lack of terror, tension or suspense and the pedestrian direction, and due to the significant abridgement that underuses Holmes drastically, the changes and omissions really affecting the coherence and intrigue, the telling also feels jumpy and rushed. The costumes are cheap and the hound is far from terrifying, the only terrifying thing about it is how laughable and so 1950s or earlier it looks.

Overall, not a complete dog but almost is. Very disappointing. 4/10 Bethany Cox

When i saw the promo for this i knew i had to see it. I've always liked Matt Frewer but i could not conceive of him as Sherlock Holmes. Matt Frewer as Sherlock Holmes? Come on! Maybe as inspector LeStrade but not Holmes. But, being a fan of the actor i thought i'd give it a try and i sat down eagerly to watch. Man, i was disappointed. My first thought was he had dealt a serious blow to his career or maybe he had lost it as an actor. His performance was abysmal. It reminded me of Richard Dreyfus's portrayal of Richard III in "Goodbye Girl". It was that bad. His Holmes was an effeminate smug superior clown. I am at a loss to see that they actually made more of these. I'll have to check them out to see if they improve.

Now, i admit that I am a HUGE fan of the Jeremy Brett Holmes, so take that into account.

On the positive side, the portrayal of Watson by Kenneth Walsh was fantastic. Very much in the new tradition established by David Burke and Edward Hardwicke in the Grenada version. It is nice to see Watson portrayed as a thoughtful, intelligent professional man, as a competent doctor and of strong character.

Visually the movie is decent and if i had to toll it up i'd say it was worth watching but only just.

By the way, having seen Matt Frewer in "Taken" i was reassured to see he is still the earnest and entertaining actor i believed he was.

One minor disappointment - I cringed to see the deerstalker hat make an appearance. (i don't think Brett wears one once in the Grenada versions) Why is Holmes always pictured wearing one? I don't recall that he ever wears one in the stories.

Jeremy Brett rules!

This was the only book that was more about Watson then Sherlock. Which in this case it for the better, unlike the most recent Holmes in elementary and Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock played in three or four scene which added up to 10-15 min total. Which to me benifets the movie any more I might have shut it off seeing it was painful to watch. Sherlock show genius in his profession in books and other movies. In this movie Sherlock just set up a sting. Even saying he wasn't sure if he was the villian. Unfortunately there was no explanation of how Sherlock got to his conclusion. Leaving you to wonder how the villian murder the man at the beginning of the movie. As well as the fact Sherlock becomes face to face with his friend then the murder. This movie doesn't not to the book justice

This is of course Conan Doyles' best Holmes adventure and I have enjoyed every film version that I have seen, up till now. This is without a doubt the most abysmal portrayal of the great detective that I have ever seen. Matt Frewer is guilty of rampant overacting, his arrogant and cocky portrayal of Holmes, is completely at odds with Doyles' character and the elegant portrayal by Basil Rathbone who remains the best Holmes ever. I was so embarrassed for Frewers playacting that I simply could not watch any more than the first twenty or so, minutes. On the other hand, while Nigel Bruce was a comedic foil to Holmes, as the iconic Dr. Watson, I did like Kenneth Welshes well studied portrayal. But that, alas could not carry the story. The fiilmic style utilized some very cheap techniques that foretold to me that the rest of the movie would be a waste of time.