Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

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.

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.

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.

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