Sherlock Holmes - Il mastino di Baskerville

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.

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

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.

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.