The Hound of the Baskervilles

We love Tom Baker, but the quality of the direction and supporting cast makes a mockery of the very concept of dramatic performance. As a lifelong Sherlock Holmes fan, born in the cradle of Dartmoor's misty tors, this production betrays both its fictional and historical roots, and is merely a hollow imitation of its source, which was served far more ably by the incomparable Jeremy Brett. Baker mistakes adult fiction for a serious performance and would have been better served by allowing the eccentricity of the 'doctor' to come to the fore. What this production badly needed was for someone, either in front or behind the camera, to take control and allow the multi-faceted nature of Holmes' character to drive events. A wasted opportunity that contributes nothing to the genre. It only contributed to putting the final nails in Baker's career.

Big bag o' thrash.

Tom Baker did this film just after putting in 7 years as Dr. Who. There are traces of his eccentric turn as The Doctor that show up here. I enjoyed him as Holmes. The story is familiar to me so I could look at other things at leisure. It does look pretty good, considering it's a BBC-type tv production. This is neither the best nor the worst version of this story I've seen. The fact that Baker donned the Holmes outfit in a Dr. Who serial and that he had played Holmes on stage before must have made him very comfortable in the role, for he does so effortlessly. Tom Baker is such a joy to watch doing anything, and the chance to see him play one of my favorite characters gave me special thrill. His Holmes seems to enjoy life more. He dives into the chance to solve this most chilling of murder mysteries. The supporting cast is fine, and special kudos must go out to the set designers. All in all, I would give it a "6" out of "10".

I've had this production tucked away for over a decade and never seen it, until now. As a die hard Tom Baker fan (Doctor Who) I have struggled on occasion to get to grips with him in other roles, but as always he totally came up trumps. My initial thoughts of him being miscast were unfair and wrong, he gave a very strong, down to Earth, honest performance, adding character and presence, not dramatics as I had expected. Terence Rigby made for a very good Watson too, finally not made to be a bumbling buffoon, he was a worthy sidekick to the great detective.

I was very impressed by the production values and the closeness of the original text, it didn't seem like they'd tinkered about with the script a great deal. The costumes and set designs look spot on, that quality you always expect from the BBC.

My only negative would be the casting of Nicholas Woodeson, and his character, a fine actor, but I found the character lacking in any warmth, unsympathetic almost, I picture Henry Baskerville as handsome and lacking harshness. If our Henry here had been dog food, I'd not have lost a huge amount of sleep.

It's an excellent production, it's well worth obtaining.

8/10.

This was like watching a high school senior play in which the teenaged actors were directed by a bored drama teacher to employ every stereotype they had ever seen (or heard) of Holmes and Watson. It's completely understandable that Tom Baker would later apologize for his portrayal. Even by 1982 standards, the production quality was sorely lacking.

Although I enjoyed Tom Baker as Dr. Who, watching him play the same character and renaming it Sherlock Holmes was a bit of a yawn. This film is pretty much unwatchable, especially after seeing the Jeremy Brett version. The only casting of Holmes that is worse was Roger Moore