AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Steineded How sad is this?

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

Leofwine_draca 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.

dittoheadaz 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...)

captnemo 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".

raingrdn 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