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.

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.

Before I bought the DVD of this version of the "Hound of the Baskervilles" with Matt Frewer playing Holmes, I read the other user comments listed on the IMDB and I have to agree that the script was not very good and in fact, I found it to be somewhat poor in many respects. I also must mention that Jason London's performance as Sir Henry Baskerville was in my opinion dismal. He played the role as if the casting company went out in the street and asked the first guy they came across to please step in and take the role. I would think that Joe Namath could have done better but on the other hand maybe that is what London was trying to do. Maybe London was trying to put into the role such realism as a simple man pulled into a situation as an inheritor to a vast English estate that he played the role with a deadpan delivery of his lines. I wonder. On the other hand I was delighted with Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes. His physical appearance fit the role well and his particular charactaristics in stage presentation I think added an interesting twist to the Holmes character. As a Sherlockian, I like to see the differences that various actors give to the character. I would have liked to seen more of Frewer's Holmes in this film but the dismal script distorted and shortened the story so that the Holmes character is only seen in the first quarter of the film and then near the end of the film. In agreement with most of the other comments made on this version, If you are a film buff and a Sherlockian as I am, than this DVD is worth adding to your collection. If you are simply a fan of mystery films perhaps it is better for you to wait for this version to be rerun on TV or if you find it in your video rental store, the film is certainly worth the rental fee. Trailrider

I don't know of any serious Sherlockian who would have any use for this abhorred mess! I have absolutely nothing good to say -- it wastes a lot of time, talent and money. And now Matt Frewer is doing sequels! The mind boggles!By the way, what kind of dog did they use in this version? Looked like a skipperdee!