The Hound of the Baskervilles (2000)

Memorable, crazy movie

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

I always look forward to a remake of a classic, especially Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work. However, this 2000 movie version of The Hound of the Baskervilles was virtually inauthentic and disappointing.Sherlock, played by Matt Frewer, had a contrived English accent, was arrogant and frivolous. It was the worst Sherlock rendition. Others also had disingenuous false accents, not genuinely belonging to the period, and, thereby, falsifying and degrading the movie itself. The moors were incorrect and delusive. The voices were slurred and the plot ambiguous at times.The only saving grace to this remake was Dr. Watson, played by Kenneth Welsh.

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.

Hound of the Baskervilles, The (2000) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Decent adaptation of the Arthur Conan Doyle book has Holmes (Matt Frewer) and Watson (Kenneth Welsh) trying to determine if Sir Henry (Jason London) is being stalked by a family curse or something human. This Canadian, made-for-TV version of the famous story wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting and it actually had a pretty good look and feel to it. I think director Gibbons perfectly nails the atmosphere of the story and manages to get you right into the mood of the dark tale. The movie does a pretty good job at keeping everything moving quite well even if you've seen previous versions of the story done (much better by Fox and Hammer). Many fans of Holmes often complain that they don't like the fact that he's missing from so much of this story but I think they won't mind it here. I'm really not familiar with Frewer's work as an actor but I didn't care for him at all here and I must say that the film suffers whenever he's on the screen. I'm really not sure if he thought he was playing some spoof or what but I found his performance to be almost comic like and it really didn't mix too well with any of the other actors and the type of performances they were giving. I also didn't believe for a second that he was some sort of brilliant mind and this here is something very important to believe when it comes to Holmes. I thought Welsh was extremely good as Watson and he certainly helped carry a lot of the film. London doesn't do the best job possible but he's not too bad. None of the other supporting players jumped out at me but none of them were bad or damaged the film. I do think the final thirty-minutes drag a little too slowly but if you've seen previous versions and want to try a new one then I don't think you'll mind this one. If you haven't seen any of the earlier versions then you will want to start there first and leave this one for later.

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.