TheLittleSongbird
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
Scarecrow-88
Hound of the Baskervilles on a smaller scale with Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes merely an afterthought this time around. Jason London is miscast as Sir Henry Baskerville(..perhaps cast at that time when he was rather a hot commodity in Hollywood), heir to his ancestor Sir Hugo's fortune, manor, and estate(..not to mention, the moor and practically an entire village nearby known as Grimpen, definitely dependent upon him), his life threatened by a notorious "hell hound" roaming the moor..from a legend passed down for generations as a specter haunting the family line due to Hugo's infamous behavior towards a tenant's missus. Anyway, a member of the Grimpen country, Dr. Mortimer(Gordon Masten),is worried for Sir Henry's safety, seeking Sherlock Holmes's help in identifying the culprit behind a possible murder of the recently deceased Sir Charles Baskerville, who perished from a coronary, some believe because of his belief in the dreaded hound scouring the moor. Holmes, interested after reading a letter sent as a warning to Sir Henry, sends Watson on to the manor as a sort of protector as he must attend to duties in London. This little television movie follows Watson's sleuthing as he uncovers little things that contribute to something possible sinister in store for Sir Henry. Also, we see how the Barrymores(Arthur Holden and Leni Parker)are sending food and clothing to her escaped convict brother, wrongfully accused for a murder he didn't commit, sentenced to the gallows, who is living in a little area on the moor someplace. Frewer, when the film is set in London at the start, seems to be having a ball as Holmes, but once the plot shifts to Baskerville manor, he vanishes from screen altogether, popping up at the very end with Kenneth Welsh's delightfully spry and aware Watson given the bulk of the detective duties. London actually has more to do than Frewer, and does what he can with a rather bland role, but he's no Christopher Lee, and doesn't even attempt to play his character as anything other than an American in brand new environs. He simply seems out of place. I reckon Frewer won't be on anyone's favorites list as Holmes, and he isn't in this film long enough to cause any detrimental harm. The filmmakers get as much mileage as possible out of the production value and setting, perhaps to make up for the many shortcomings in the script and rather uninteresting characters(characterizations). I don't believe this will figure prominently alongside the countless other versions of the Arthur Conan Doyle story-to-screen adaptations. The decision on how to portray the hound is rather laughable, I'm afraid(..particularly his red eyes). I must say, though, that it was intriguing to see Watson carrying the film, instead of Holmes. Other screen versions go out of the way to make sure both have a sizable amount to do in the film, because Sherlock Holmes fans want to see him! Perhaps, it was a good idea not to have Frewer no longer than he appears. I love Frewer in other over-the-top roles where he has free reign to go as far off the deep end as he so desires, but as Holmes, you can only carry eccentricity to a certain point, and his flippancy in regards to the possible danger awaiting Henry is rather contemptible(..unlike Holmes in other versions, Frewer's version waits until the very end to show up as the hound is gnawing away at Sir Henry's arm, on the verge of tearing it off). And, unlike the warm relationship of other Holmes/Watson teams, there's quite a disagreeable nature to the Welsh/Frewer version, and they're not together on screen enough(..and, preferably so)for us to ever cling to them as a likable duo. Robin Wilcock and Emma Campbell barely leave an impression, registering little as "brother and sister" Stapletons, neighbors who live on the moor, who extend a seemingly hospitable hand of friendship to Sir Henry(..although, Beryl warns him of possible harm if he doesn't leave while brother scoffs at such nonsense as a devil hound, a naturalist himself with an enthusiastic view of the moor). The English countryside is a very good asset, utilized effectively, though. This movie felt like more of an introduction to a television series than a stand-alone adaptation.
vickiann
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.
