JoeB131 Spoilers if you haven't read the novel or seen one of the 20 or so better adaptations of the story. Probably one of the poorer adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle's novel, this one has Matt Frewer (a good actor) as Holmes who is absent for most of the movie. While this is close to the original story (which is mostly told from the view of Dr. Watson) Holmes is more absent from this adaptation than he normally is. This one is written in a way where Watson probably would have figured it out for himself given another ten minutes. I can't give this one a good review, and I love a lot of the quirkier Holmes adaptations... even the one where Watson is a Chinese woman for some reason.

zorro2a 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

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.

Paul Andrews The Hound of the Baskervilles once again has the world famous detective Sherlock Holmes (Matt Frewer) & his trusty assistant Dr. Watson (Kenneth Walsh) tackle yet another puzzling mystery. On this occasion Holmes is contacted by Dr. James Mortimer (Gordon Masten) who wants Holmes to investigate the death of his friend Sir Charles Baskerville (Barrie Baldano) over which he has suspicion's. Dr. Mortimer tells of a legend that dates back 100's of years to the very first Baskerville, Hugo (Ben Gauthier as Benoit Gauthier) & a hound from hell that has terrorised the Baskerville family ever since & that next to Sir Charle's body he discovered large footprints that he claims were made by the huge demon hound from hell. Holmes is intrigued & agrees to take the case on & ask's Watson to accompany Dr. Mortimer & the last of the Baskervilles Sir Henry (Jason London) back to Baskerville Hall while he attends to business in London. The mystery deepens as Sir Henry receives a letter warning him to stay away from the moors, an escaped prisoner (Jason Cavalier) is on the prowl on the moors, strange terrifying noises are heard late at night, mysterious letters to Sir Charles asking to meet him the night he died, local superstitions & a long list of suspects that Holmes & Watson must unravel & discover the truth...This Canadian produced made-for-TV feature length Sherlock Holmes mystery was directed by Rodney Gibbons this was the first of four feature length Holmes stories made by CTV & is OK but far from the best version of this classic story ever made. The script by Joe Wiesenfeld based on the novel by Arthur Conan Doyle is pretty much like any other film version that I have seen although it's not as layered as I would have liked. It's very linear with few clues to ponder over, there is a distinct lack of action as the hound itself barely features & there are too few suspects. Since Holmes is missing for most of this particular adventure it's left to Watson to carry the story which I didn't think he did that well, the ending is also a disappointment with a poor reveal & not much in the way of any excitement. Having said that the story is still strong & entertains it's just there are so many better adaptations it's hard to recommend this particular one. Technically this The Hound of the Baskervilles is one of the poorest & impoverished versions I've seen which counts against it. The costumes are all over the place & look shabby, the music & editing are poor & reek of a cheap made-for-TV production, the production design is bland & the interior of Baskerville Hall are obviously fake looking sets, the exterior is apparently Montacute House in Somerset, England but the moor shots definitely aren't shot in England as I've lived here all my life & it just doesn't look like any moor I've ever seen. The atmosphere is non existent, the hound looks really bad with stupid red plastic eyes & the whole production just doesn't feel or look right even if I can't quite put my finger on it as to why. Director Gibbons obviously knows nothing about creating tension as the horror & flashback scenes are filmed in slow motion, blurred colours & they jerk around all over the place which just cheapens everything even more. The acting is very bad, Matt Frewer is bizarre as Holmes & I can't describe how he plays him. Most people regard Jeremy Brett as the ultimate Holmes which I agree with & anyone familiar with his wonderful performances will be horrified by Frewer. One more thing, John Dunn-Hill as Frankland has the worst most pathetic Scottish accent I've ever heard, anywhere, ever. With nothing to distinguish this version of The Hound of the Baskervilles except the overall strength of the story which even these filmmakers couldn't screw up & much better adaptations out there this really is not worth bothering with. Try the made-for-British TV The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988) version staring Brett which is infinitely superior to this. Worth a watch if your a die-hard Holmes fan or if you can catch it on TV for free otherwise don't consider spending any sort of money or time on it.