El perro de los Baskerville

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.

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 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.

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.