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".
15 Reviews
An excellent adaptation for British television, of the Conan-Doyle classic.
tinman196020035 May 2006
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 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.
Even worked as a radio serial.
brazzalottosimon29 December 2018
My family watched this when it was broadcast by the ABC in Australia and we were enjoying it very much. We were disappointed that we would miss the last instalment as we were going away to stay in a caravan without TV.
Fortunately I'd learnt that a mono FM radio could receive the sound of the ABC TV signal. We tuned in and sat in the caravan mesmerised, like a family in the 1940's listening to a radio drama.
Because we had seen the earlier episodes on TV we could easily imagine the characters and locations, thereby truly experiencing 'theatre of the mind'. It was very special.
Fortunately I'd learnt that a mono FM radio could receive the sound of the ABC TV signal. We tuned in and sat in the caravan mesmerised, like a family in the 1940's listening to a radio drama.
Because we had seen the earlier episodes on TV we could easily imagine the characters and locations, thereby truly experiencing 'theatre of the mind'. It was very special.
The Most Faithful Adaptation of "Hound"
profh-126 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
One year before Sy Weintraub mounted his epic, big-budget all-star cast "Hollywood" style version with Ian Richardson, BARRY LETTS did his BBC shoestring budget videotape version-- with Tom Baker.
But it's not fair to compare THOSE two, even though they're so much alike and yet so different. No, what's fair is to compare this with Granada's version with Jeremy Brett. Because these two ARE SOOOO similar. And yet... I can attest that EVERY scene in the Baker version is SUPERIOR. More ENERGY! More CLARITY! More TENSION! And more DIALOGUE. In many scenes, the exact same words are spoken, which tells me both versions did follow the book, but there's just MORE in this one. In fact, there's so much more, it seems Tom Baker was running off at the mouth at high speed just to fit it all in! NO dead air-- NO long, boring silences. This thing MOVES like lightning!
The supporting cast is mostly unknowns, but do their parts justice. Terrence Rigby, despite doing a low-key "Nigel Bruce", really seems to be trying hard to give us a Watson who's intelligent & caring. Only a year later he returned as "Inspector Layton" in the Weintraub-Richardson SIGN OF FOUR. (There seems to be a lot of that over the years with actors playing more than one part in various Holmes films.) Will Knightley is likable and somewhat eccentric as Dr. Mortimer. Nicholas Woodeson as Henry Baskerville is a bit of a surprise. He seems several inches shorter than I would expect for the part, and yet he brings strength and real character to it, and his growing friendship with Watson is very believable.
As might be expected from the Letts-Dicks team, 3 other DOCTOR WHO actors turn up. I couldn't place him until I looked him up, but Barrymore is played by Morris Perry, who was the unspeakable EVIL "Captain Dent" in "COLONY IN SPACE". Laura Lyons is played by Caroline John, who as "Liz Shaw" remains one of my top favorite WHO girls. And Inspector Lestrade, who arrives at the end, is played by Hubert Rees, who was in "FURY FROM THE DEEP", "THE WAR GAMES", and played opposite Tom Baker in the first 2 episodes of "THE SEEDS OF DOOM" (which I've seen at least a dozen times over the years). All are excellent, although Lestrade barely has any lines at all!
While it bothered me far less this latest viewing, the 2nd half of the film is really cut to the bone, and feels as if two-thirds of the story has been crammed into the 2nd half. Had this been 3 hours instead of 2, I daresay nothing from the book would have been left out. Mr. Franklin is relegated to a cameo, and so we barely have time to grasp his relationship with his daughter Laura. Apart from this, the only place where the budget hurts is that the interior of Baskerville Hall just does not have the "mammoth" feel of nearly every other version I've seen.
I do feel the climax, where they pursue Stapleton, is much better than the limp ending in the Brett version. The killer's possible fate was suggested (but not shown) in the Rathbone version, but the way Holmes delivered the line "...across the Grimpen mire" was quite dramatic and left little doubt. Still, there are times when changes, especially to make things more visual, are definite improvements in a film version.
My feeling is, THIS is the MOST FAITHFUL version. I know, I really should actually READ the book to be absolutely sure, but from closely comparing multiple versions, my instincts tell me this is probably the closest we'll ever see (unless someone ever decides to do a 3-hour version...).
In his autobiography (one of the most disturbing books I have ever read in my life), Tom Baker said he felt he was terrible in this part. I disagree. He may not LOOK like Holmes, but he FEELS like Holmes. And he is, by far, the BEST thing about this version, after the script itself. Although he didn't write it, when "script editor" Terrence Dicks' name came up in the end credits, I APPLAUDED. DAMN, this is GOOD!!!
Of the many versions of "HOUND" over the years, my favorites remain (in no particular order) Rathbone, Cushing, Baker & Richardson. All are worth watching, again and again!
But it's not fair to compare THOSE two, even though they're so much alike and yet so different. No, what's fair is to compare this with Granada's version with Jeremy Brett. Because these two ARE SOOOO similar. And yet... I can attest that EVERY scene in the Baker version is SUPERIOR. More ENERGY! More CLARITY! More TENSION! And more DIALOGUE. In many scenes, the exact same words are spoken, which tells me both versions did follow the book, but there's just MORE in this one. In fact, there's so much more, it seems Tom Baker was running off at the mouth at high speed just to fit it all in! NO dead air-- NO long, boring silences. This thing MOVES like lightning!
The supporting cast is mostly unknowns, but do their parts justice. Terrence Rigby, despite doing a low-key "Nigel Bruce", really seems to be trying hard to give us a Watson who's intelligent & caring. Only a year later he returned as "Inspector Layton" in the Weintraub-Richardson SIGN OF FOUR. (There seems to be a lot of that over the years with actors playing more than one part in various Holmes films.) Will Knightley is likable and somewhat eccentric as Dr. Mortimer. Nicholas Woodeson as Henry Baskerville is a bit of a surprise. He seems several inches shorter than I would expect for the part, and yet he brings strength and real character to it, and his growing friendship with Watson is very believable.
As might be expected from the Letts-Dicks team, 3 other DOCTOR WHO actors turn up. I couldn't place him until I looked him up, but Barrymore is played by Morris Perry, who was the unspeakable EVIL "Captain Dent" in "COLONY IN SPACE". Laura Lyons is played by Caroline John, who as "Liz Shaw" remains one of my top favorite WHO girls. And Inspector Lestrade, who arrives at the end, is played by Hubert Rees, who was in "FURY FROM THE DEEP", "THE WAR GAMES", and played opposite Tom Baker in the first 2 episodes of "THE SEEDS OF DOOM" (which I've seen at least a dozen times over the years). All are excellent, although Lestrade barely has any lines at all!
While it bothered me far less this latest viewing, the 2nd half of the film is really cut to the bone, and feels as if two-thirds of the story has been crammed into the 2nd half. Had this been 3 hours instead of 2, I daresay nothing from the book would have been left out. Mr. Franklin is relegated to a cameo, and so we barely have time to grasp his relationship with his daughter Laura. Apart from this, the only place where the budget hurts is that the interior of Baskerville Hall just does not have the "mammoth" feel of nearly every other version I've seen.
I do feel the climax, where they pursue Stapleton, is much better than the limp ending in the Brett version. The killer's possible fate was suggested (but not shown) in the Rathbone version, but the way Holmes delivered the line "...across the Grimpen mire" was quite dramatic and left little doubt. Still, there are times when changes, especially to make things more visual, are definite improvements in a film version.
My feeling is, THIS is the MOST FAITHFUL version. I know, I really should actually READ the book to be absolutely sure, but from closely comparing multiple versions, my instincts tell me this is probably the closest we'll ever see (unless someone ever decides to do a 3-hour version...).
In his autobiography (one of the most disturbing books I have ever read in my life), Tom Baker said he felt he was terrible in this part. I disagree. He may not LOOK like Holmes, but he FEELS like Holmes. And he is, by far, the BEST thing about this version, after the script itself. Although he didn't write it, when "script editor" Terrence Dicks' name came up in the end credits, I APPLAUDED. DAMN, this is GOOD!!!
Of the many versions of "HOUND" over the years, my favorites remain (in no particular order) Rathbone, Cushing, Baker & Richardson. All are worth watching, again and again!
"Who" On The Moor
timdalton00714 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Some actors have risen to fame playing Sherlock Holmes, such as Jeremy Brett and Benedict Cumberbatch. Others have been well-known names who've taken on the part, ranging as wildly from Roger Moore and Charlton Heston to Robert Downey Jr. Falling into the latter category is Tom Baker, best known as the Fourth Doctor in the BBC's long-running series Doctor Who. Not long after he departed the TARDIS, he took on the world's most famous detective in a BBC adaptation of the most famous Holmes story of them all. A production made by two of the people who had helped cast him as the Doctor: producer Barry Letts and script editor Terrance Dicks, now making Sunday Classic drama serials.
So with all that in mind, how well does this 1982 version of Hound of the Baskervilles stand up?
It certainly has plenty going for it. The famously eccentric Baker was a perfect choice for Holmes, bringing the right sense of wit, intelligence, and occasional humor to the role. True, there are times when Baker's Holmes seems oddly laid back, but even then Baker proves impossible to take one's eyes off of when he's on-screen. The production also wisely avoids, until toward the end, putting him in the cliche Holmesian outfit of deerstalker, cape, and so forth but, once they do, they prove an ideal fit for him. He's a fine Holmes, and it seems a shame that he never played the role again on-screen.
There are other things in its favor, as well. Much of the cast is solid in their roles, including Christopher Ravenscroft as Stapleton and another Doctor Who alumni, Caroline John, as Laura Lyons. Speaking of Lyons, a character often missing from adaptations of the novel (including the later 2002 BBC one), adapter Alexander Baron molds Doyle's original story to the screen rather faithfully, making the most use of two hours of screentime across four half-hour episodes. Combined with the ever high BBC standard for period costumes and sets, the result is a faithful and rather splendid looking adaptation of Hound.
But not a perfect one, by any stretch. As good as Baker and much of the cast is, there's some diabolically bad casting here too. Namely, in the rather flat performance of Terence Rigby as a borderline disinterested Watson or Nicholas Woodeson's Sir Henry Baskerville being decidedly brash and lacking in charm. Their performances, in particular, hurt the overall production since so much of the middle of the story rides on their shoulders. Elsewhere, as good as the sets and costumes are, Peter Duguid's direction comes across as satisfactory at best with very little effort to add flair to the standard BBC multi-camera production style of the era. The on-location scenes, shot on film, come across far better, even atmospheric in places, but there's one place where the production does let down: the titular hound making its attack at the climax. This production's hound is a creature that looks downright cuddly, utterly unconvincing as a thing of terror, despite the darkness around it and the attempt at an unearthly glow. Taken together, they knock an otherwise solid adaptation and production down a few pegs.
While it might not be the greatest or most atmospheric adaptation of Doyle's legendary Holmes novel, there's still plenty to recommend this 1982 version for having. From Baker's wonderfully eccentric Holmes to Baron's considerably faithful script, and the BBC's penchant for rich period details, of course, the pluses serve to outweigh the minuses more often than not. If nothing else, it's a chance to see "Who" out on the moor, as it were.
So with all that in mind, how well does this 1982 version of Hound of the Baskervilles stand up?
It certainly has plenty going for it. The famously eccentric Baker was a perfect choice for Holmes, bringing the right sense of wit, intelligence, and occasional humor to the role. True, there are times when Baker's Holmes seems oddly laid back, but even then Baker proves impossible to take one's eyes off of when he's on-screen. The production also wisely avoids, until toward the end, putting him in the cliche Holmesian outfit of deerstalker, cape, and so forth but, once they do, they prove an ideal fit for him. He's a fine Holmes, and it seems a shame that he never played the role again on-screen.
There are other things in its favor, as well. Much of the cast is solid in their roles, including Christopher Ravenscroft as Stapleton and another Doctor Who alumni, Caroline John, as Laura Lyons. Speaking of Lyons, a character often missing from adaptations of the novel (including the later 2002 BBC one), adapter Alexander Baron molds Doyle's original story to the screen rather faithfully, making the most use of two hours of screentime across four half-hour episodes. Combined with the ever high BBC standard for period costumes and sets, the result is a faithful and rather splendid looking adaptation of Hound.
But not a perfect one, by any stretch. As good as Baker and much of the cast is, there's some diabolically bad casting here too. Namely, in the rather flat performance of Terence Rigby as a borderline disinterested Watson or Nicholas Woodeson's Sir Henry Baskerville being decidedly brash and lacking in charm. Their performances, in particular, hurt the overall production since so much of the middle of the story rides on their shoulders. Elsewhere, as good as the sets and costumes are, Peter Duguid's direction comes across as satisfactory at best with very little effort to add flair to the standard BBC multi-camera production style of the era. The on-location scenes, shot on film, come across far better, even atmospheric in places, but there's one place where the production does let down: the titular hound making its attack at the climax. This production's hound is a creature that looks downright cuddly, utterly unconvincing as a thing of terror, despite the darkness around it and the attempt at an unearthly glow. Taken together, they knock an otherwise solid adaptation and production down a few pegs.
While it might not be the greatest or most atmospheric adaptation of Doyle's legendary Holmes novel, there's still plenty to recommend this 1982 version for having. From Baker's wonderfully eccentric Holmes to Baron's considerably faithful script, and the BBC's penchant for rich period details, of course, the pluses serve to outweigh the minuses more often than not. If nothing else, it's a chance to see "Who" out on the moor, as it were.
Little-known BBC miniseries adaptation
Leofwine_draca30 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is a four-part BBC miniseries adaptation of the famous detective novel, featuring Tom Baker as Sherlock Holmes. It was his first role after coming out of DOCTOR WHO. This production was made at the Pebble Mill studios and looks extremely cheap and studio bound throughout, with an episode and a half taking place before the action even moves out of Baker Street.
Saying that, this is also oddly endearing at times and fairly watchable, although certainly not the best adaptation of the source material; try the Rathbone and Hammer versions for that. The moorland settings are well realised and the reliable Nicholas Woodeson (later of ROME fame) has a decent stab of Sir Henry. The storyline is adapted fairly well, getting rid of some of the extraneous material while keeping the main characters involved in the mystery. The titular hound's appearance is quite laughable but as a huge fan of BBC drama in the 1980s, I was still pleased by what I saw.
Saying that, this is also oddly endearing at times and fairly watchable, although certainly not the best adaptation of the source material; try the Rathbone and Hammer versions for that. The moorland settings are well realised and the reliable Nicholas Woodeson (later of ROME fame) has a decent stab of Sir Henry. The storyline is adapted fairly well, getting rid of some of the extraneous material while keeping the main characters involved in the mystery. The titular hound's appearance is quite laughable but as a huge fan of BBC drama in the 1980s, I was still pleased by what I saw.
The best Hound of them all
richbeckton12 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This mini series starring Tom Baker as Holmes is by far the best Hound adaptation there has been. I haven't seen this since it was first broadcast but from what I can remember it was very loyal to the novel. I had just read the book prior to watching it and apart from the ending where they watch Stapleton sink into the Grimpen Mire, it is very true to the original story. Some of the other adaptations mess about with the story too much and add characters and make up sub plots that spoil, in my opinion, the best detective novel that's ever been written. Even the Jeremy Brett version isn't as good as this one. Tom Baker was very brave doing this as he had just finished Dr Who and I thought that it would be a bit odd seeing him as the "worlds greatest detective". But he pulled it off. I am a very big Holmes fan and read the Hound of the Baskervilles every year. We keep seeing new versions of the story but none live up to expectations.
One of the better adaptations
dittoheadaz20 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This was one of the better adaptations of the original story. There were a few sections of the plot that had to be removed from the script due to time considerations (as usual), but at least I didn't notice any items that were either left unresolved or unexplained (which happens when scripts are hacked or the final product is edited because of time). Tom Baker once again demonstrated his acting ability (from the evil Koura to the good Doctor to the brainy Sherlock Holmes). The only weakness was in a change from the original plot at the end (spoiler coming!): In the original, Stapleton vanished and was presumed to have died in the Grimpen Mire. In this version, Holmes and crew caught up with him (despite his incredible head start) and after a halfhearted attempt to rescue Stapleton, they stood there and watched him sink. (Not even a try to set up a "human bridge" - and they saw where Stapleton had been stepping up to the point where he got caught in the mud.) Other than that, an excellent version! (Although, to be honest, I was half-expecting Holmes to offer Lestrade a jelly baby as he was leaving at the end...)
Not quite a 'classic' classic!
NumptyB10 August 2005
I remember this adaptation, made for the BBC's Sunday Classic Serial slot. Tom Baker had just left 'Doctor Who' where he was 'fantastic' (of course!) I think this was the first time he had played the sleuth (he starred as Holmes on stage in 'The Mask of Moriarty' in 1985) but do not remember his performance here! I do remember Terence Rigby as Watson turned in another in a long line of Nigel Bruce impressions.
Thank goodness we soon had David Burke to set a new example for Edward Hardwicke and Ian Hart! What I do remember favourably is Carl Davis' haunting theme music and the animated titles. The music was very much in the vein of Davis' sombre theme for 'Winston Churchill - The Wilderness Years.' The animated titles (following the Hound's shadow from rock to rock over a bleak, dark-skied Dartmoor) would have served well as a storyboard for part of the never yet correctly filmed 'legend of the Hound!' Oh well - we can dream!
Thank goodness we soon had David Burke to set a new example for Edward Hardwicke and Ian Hart! What I do remember favourably is Carl Davis' haunting theme music and the animated titles. The music was very much in the vein of Davis' sombre theme for 'Winston Churchill - The Wilderness Years.' The animated titles (following the Hound's shadow from rock to rock over a bleak, dark-skied Dartmoor) would have served well as a storyboard for part of the never yet correctly filmed 'legend of the Hound!' Oh well - we can dream!
Doctor Wholmes??????
Sleepin_Dragon25 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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 a brilliant production, well worth obtaining. 8/10
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 a brilliant production, well worth obtaining. 8/10
Painful
Ralindon015 April 2022
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.
Baker does a wonderful Sherlock Holmes
dogma-536683 June 2022
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.
Idiosyncratic performance, there are better versions.
FISHCAKE11 August 1999
Tom Baker's performance as Holmes displays mannerisms that could only be called idiosyncratic, and, for me at least, were displeasing. The basic story is well covered, though, and collectors of Holmesiana might like to have a view or a tape if it should come available. The Basil Rathbone film is miles ahead so far as Holmes atmosphere is concerned.
Dr. Who plays Sherlock Holmes
raingrdn15 March 2000
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
Bag O' Thrash
rob-fisher61 October 2005
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.
Big bag o' thrash.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
