The Hound Of The Baskervilles (DVD)

Sir Charles Baskerville dies on the moors, supposedly killed by the curse that has affected the Baskerville family for a couple of centuries, which is thought to be in the form of a giant dog - the hound of the title. When the new Baskerville, Sir Henry, inherits, his friends are eager that he does not fall foul to the curse, and so approach famous detective Sherlock Holmes to help them. Holmes agrees to let his assistant, Dr Watson, accompany Sir ...
...summary of goings-on, both on the part of Sir Henry and his neighbours, the Stapletons. Can Dr Watson save Sir Henry from the curse? Or is it fate?

There have been so many versions of this story, based on the original novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, featuring Sherlock Holmes. I have watched a handful of them - the Jeremy Brett version, the Peter Cushing version and the 1939 Basil Rathbone version particularly spring to mind - and ... more

Sir Charles Baskerville dies on the moors, supposedly killed by the curse that has affected the Baskerville family for a couple of centuries, which is thought to be in the form of a giant dog - the hound of the title. When the new Baskerville, Sir Henry, inherits, his friends are eager that he does not fall foul to the curse, and so approach famous detective Sherlock Holmes to help them. Holmes agrees to let his assistant, Dr Watson, accompany Sir Henry to the Baskervilles ancestral home, claiming to be too busy himself. He does, however, receive letters from Dr Watson with a detailed summary of goings-on, both on the part of Sir Henry and his neighbours, the Stapletons. Can Dr Watson save Sir Henry from the curse? Or is it fate?

There have been so many versions of this story, based on the original novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, featuring Sherlock Holmes. I have watched a handful of them - the Jeremy Brett version, the Peter Cushing version and the 1939 Basil Rathbone version particularly spring to mind - and was doubtful whether this one would be able to bring anything new to the story. So doubtful that I could barely bring myself to watch it. Obviously I did in the end, so is it any good?

Matt Frewer, an actor I have never heard of, plays Sherlock Holmes. It is perhaps not surprising I have never heard of him - he is a Canadian actor - this film having been made with a Canadian audience in mind. Sherlock Holmes is never going to be an easy character to play - his little foibles can be translated in so many different ways. For me, the definitive Sherlock Holmes is played by Jeremy Brett. Frewer goes nowhere near his performance. Brett's Holmes is classily eccentric; Frewer's is, frankly, a bit of a tit. He has the gaunt, gangly look I would expect, but his performance is so obviously over-stated that it is almost painful to watch at times. Thankfully, the fact that he does not at first accompany Sir Henry and Dr Watson to the Baskerville's ancestral home means that he does not feature in the film for quite some time. Otherwise I would have had to switch off.

Kenneth Welsh plays Dr Holmes, and does a much better job. This is a natural performance that I found perfectly credible. He even managed to make Holmes' behaviour seem less painful at times. Jason London plays the part of Sir Henry, which he does well enough. To be honest though, apart from looking pretty, he doesn't have to do all that much. His so-called love affair with Stapleton's sister doesn't really get off the ground in this version, so his role is pretty redundant. The role of Stapleton, the Baskerville's neighbour, is played by Robin Wilcock. Unfortunately, he gets the accent completely wrong. One moment I thought he might be American/Canadian, the next, he sounded German. Not once did he convince me that he was English, and I found it impossible to overlook this, so his acting ability went largely unnoticed.

This is a celebrated Conan Doyle story, and as such, is never going to be completely rubbish. However, I did think that this version was poorly scripted - not from the point of view of what the characters actually said, but from the pacing angle. The other versions of this film that I have seen have been more balanced; this one, unfortunately, has long stretches of nothing in particular happening. When the ending came, it had minimal impact on me. It may be partly because of the fact that I am so familiar with the storyline, so there are no surprises, but I have watched Jeremy Brett's version time after time without becoming this bored, so I do have to conclude that this is a weaker version.

Another disadvantage to this version is the complete lack of atmosphere. The story takes place around the Baskervilles' ancestral home, which is moorland. The moor is usually described as being creepy, particularly at night, and often misty. The main thing that struck me with this film is how beautiful and green the moorland is. It was apparently filmed on Dartmoor, which can look spooky, but it just didn't cut the mustard as far as this film was concerned. Not even the dog was scary - it just looked like an ordinary mongrel with red eyes.

I don't think that this film is awful. It feels like a made-for-TV film, and it was made for Canadian TV. As a film to buy on DVD though, this is a big no-no, unless you are determined to collect all the versions of this story. I personally think there are much better versions - namely Jeremy Brett's and Basil Rathbone's. Why directors choose to re-make films when there are already excellent versions out there, I just don't know. This one wasn't worth the effort. Watch it if you are a Sherlock Holmes fan and come across it on TV, but I definitely wouldn't recommend buying.

The DVD is available from play.com from £1.20 - it is only available in the used section.

Classification: PG

Running time: 90 minutes 

...less