I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Blistering performances.

When I first heard about this Russian Sherlock Holmes stories, I was curious. Thanks to an up loader on Youtube, I think he is also the same person who writes the number one review here, I was able to watch it.Perhaps due to issues not related to this film, issues of my life, I cannot say that I have been enthralled with this film. HOund of the Baskervilles of course is the most famous of all Sherlock Holmes stories. You have the 1939 film with the most famous of Holmes, Basil Rathbone, and then you have the 1959 version, color courtesy of Hammer, with Peter Cushing.Having seen the Hammer version first, before the Rathbone version, The Hammer version has always been my favorite, even above the more critically acclaimed 1939 version. Also for me, Peter Cushing will always be Sherlock Holmes, Andre Morrell Dr. Watson, and Christopher Lee the young Baskerville from Canada. Even the actor in that version playing Doctor Mortimer was great as well. I would suspect that anyone having watched the 39 and 59 versions first, will have a tough time with any other Hound of the Baskerville movies.Watching the Hound of The Baskervilles in the Russin version, while the acting by most is good, I have problems with the gentlemen playing Mortimer and the young Baskerville. Sorry that I cannot give names of the actors, I saw the actors film Slave of Love, which I did enjoy. I just can't stand both of their characters, though I kind of like it when this Dr. Mortimer holds his dog. Another big problem that others I think will have if they have seen the two more famous Baskerville movies, is that their is no suspense, if one has seen those movies, one already knows what is going on, and their is no mystery. Also what is with this Wild West style music, did Russians think that the Wild West extended to England in the 1880's as well? I have to admit, one scene of the carriage ride going to Baskerville Hall, reminded me of Sergio Corbucci's The Great Silence.Perhaps a mistake is to watch this Russian Holmes version first, perhaps at the time, the producers of these shows realized that the Hound story is the most famous, and decided it would be better to show first what might not be as familiar, as this I believe was the 6th story. I might be better off to see those other stories first also, as they might be more interesting to me to do so as I may not know what is going to happen. Also being English Speaking, and having heard Holmes always speaking English with an English accent, something that other viewers from other non-English speaking countries who may have heard Rathbone and Cushing dubbed by other actors, might also be a difference.

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" is almost certainly the Sherlock Holmes story most adapted for screen versions. In a sense that's not surprising because it's so good, but in another it is, since the character of Holmes himself is absent for much of the story. Filmmakers tend to resort to awkwardly rewriting the original or leaving the story in the hands of a bumbling, unbelievable Watson. This film, however, from a series of excellent films made for Soviet television and starring Vasili Livanov as Holmes, benefits from a Watson who is perhaps the screen's best -- excellently acted by Vitali Solomin as both a man ready for action and a sensitive writer, and always three- dimensionally written. He's more than capable of driving the middle section of this "Hound of the Baskervilles" -- a production which apart from that also seems to get just about everything else right. In two parts it runs to almost two and a half hours, and that long running time is invaluable. It never drags, being excellently directed with attention to detail in every shot and a nuanced sense of suspense, and the extra breathing room allows every minor and supporting character to be given a significant role. That's huge, as they are all illuminated with well-written scenes and inhabited as character parts with good performances. It gives a great sense of scope and complexity to the mystery. Part of the success here is that this production somehow manages to treat the original without too much reverence, but still to recreate its atmosphere perfectly. This means while Sir Henry is introduced as a very funny figure of comedy, he can slowly become more of a figure of pity. It is actually quite effective the way heart is added by playing on Sir Henry's unrequited love for Mrs. Stapleton, and his interactions with Barrymore become a delightful whole movie in and of themselves. As with the other films the cinematography as well as the locations and settings are gorgeous and evocative of a very rich and detailed Victorian world -- with a slightly Russian flavor mirrored in the language naturally spoken by the actors. The music sometimes strikes a contrast this time, but always seems to work despite itself. The hound itself -- which in other films comes off as silly -- is realized with wonderful and spooky simplicity as per its actual explanation. And, as in his previous appearances, Vasili Livanov is a sublime Sherlock Holmes -- an immensely appealing and well-acted version of the character. In short, as close to a perfect screen version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" as I have seen, and a cracking good film on its own.

Russian TV version of the story that was filmed as part of a series and then released elsewhere as a stand alone film. For the most part an excellent adaption of the story with a real genuine chemistry and warmth between Homes and Watson that would seem to predate the Jermey Brett series. This feels the way the stories should feel. If there are any flaws in the film it would be that Henry Baskerville is not English raised in North America rather he's decidedly Russian in manner, The moors, while very ominous-possibly the most in any adaptation-are not quite England and the last "flaw" is that the film is overly faithful to the story and runs two and a half hours.They are minor flaws and should not keep you from watching one of the better Holmes films made.

The movie, as well as others of this series, proves that if you got a talent, you can shoot even if you are somewhat short on means. To shoot this movie, the crew, of course, could not go to some British location, and its London portion was shot in the ancient quarter of Riga. But more than anything, marvelous play of V. Livanov and Co. made it possible to express the spirit of this novel by Arthur Conan Doyle as well as the atmosphere of the 19th century England (which, on the whole, was not the case when the Soviet movie-makers had to deal with American settings.) Unforgettable irony of almost omniscient Sherlock Holmes, Watson's ignorance, bordering on stupidity, charming sagacity of Mrs. Hudson, thick-witted inspector Lestrade - that's how the movie about Sherlock Holmes should look like.