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.

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

Despite the naysayers Tom Baker does an excellent and more than possible portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. In a bit of an overused story he brought a freshness to it. If you get a chance watch this and you'll see what I mean. Pity it wasn't hailed as one of the better Sherlock Holmes outings.

Peter Duguid can be proud of the efforts he made in adapting this classic to the small screen.

Tom Baker and Terrence Rigby are outstanding as Holmes and Watson, and for once Watson is not the buffoon as portrayed by Nigel Bruce. Baker gives a down to earth portrayal of the great detective, he comes across keen and intelligent, but not so dismissive and patronizing as Jeremy Brett often was in the same role for television.

Woodeson is fine as Sir Henry and Ravenscroft is perfect as the conniving and murderous Stapleton. The doctor, who is a part time archaeologist and collector of skulls, is ably portrayed by Knightley. His apparent willingness to believe in the supernatural dog is offset by his own keen observation and grasp of human nature.

The production values are excellent - typical of a BBC production. THe costumes and sets are very period, as they should be. THe modernized WW II era Holmes portrayed by Rathbone always left me feeling a little unsatisfied. All told, this version is excellent and does not deserve any of the trivial criticism heaped upon it by some. I heartily recommend this film if you can get it on video. I was fortunate to tape it in 1984 and still enjoy it twenty two years later.

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".