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.
Henry Kujawa
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!
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...)
FISHCAKE
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.
