A most pleasingly atmospheric rendition of the tale, noirishly photographed and moodily set, this is the version which probably would have delighted Conan Doyle the most. There is one important plot change which enables the beautiful Alice Brandt to enjoy both a larger role and a more intriguing part in the proceedings. This change also builds up the parts of Dr Mortimer and Lord Charles, yet at the same time provides a nice introduction to the is-he-sinister or is-he-a-good-guy Barrymore, deftly played here by Fritz Rasp.
Despite the sting of its well-developed story, the spellbindingly atmospheric direction and the engrossing performances delivered by the entire cast, many fans may find this version somewhat disappointing. For at least three reasons: As in the novel, the part played in the narrative by Sherlock Holmes, though vital, is minimal. And in this version, not only has no attempt been made to enlarge his role, if anything both writer and director do their best to minimize it. Holmes does not even make his entrance for half-an-hour, and when he does finally appear, he has his back to the camera. It is Fritz Odemar, as Dr Watson, who receives the more favorable camera angles. And there is a purpose in this. It is Watson, not Holmes, who figures as the main protagonist of The Hound of the Baskervilles. For the bulk of the narrative, Holmes disappears. It is Watson and Lord Henry (Peter Voss) who take up the running. The movie is almost over, before Holmes closes in on the villain. And even so, this is not the obsessed, self-important Holmes we are accustomed to see taking charge. Another problem is that the title hound itself does not figure a great deal in the action, a downgrading which will undoubtedly rate as another major disappointment for fans. And finally, it could be argued that the script gives too much attention to Conan Doyle's red herring, the escaped convict, and not enough to the real villain.
This said, it must surely be admitted by all, that Odemar's interpretation of Watson—intelligent, charming, level-headed, courageous and resourceful—is much closer to Conan Doyle's conception than either the bungling, inveterately stupid Nigel Bruce or the self-effacing Ian Fleming.
One other player deserves special mention: Erich Ponto (Dr Winkel in The Third Man) who seems exactly right for Stapleton. A difficult part, superbly played.
- JohnHowardReid, imdb
慢动作煽乐毫无节制，素材不断做加法，
“一个国家的尊严就等同于它给女性的尊严。”
谁和我一样只是一个瞎起哄的文青，眼见都不一定为实，何况是在政治乌云下布的局。网络时代不做那个带节奏的愤怒青年！
明明Jeff没有任何表情，但我好像能读懂他所有的情绪，这个穿着派克大衣的机器人的可爱程度堪比WALL.E，不分伯仲
中规中矩的公路科幻片，末日废土，一人一狗，虽然情节和人物都比较刻板，但是在细节的打磨上还是非常到位，整体呈现出来的效果还是比较温馨动人
层层反转确实有些别扭，不过敢拍也是确实敢拍。
这是一个13亿人都在追寻的真相。
不知我们何时可以有这种自信。
-＂Because trust will get you killed.＂
“正义警察”严惩凶手，民众狂欢。
用了这么长的时长还讲不好故事不是烂片是什么？豆瓣对印度片真是一贯的宽容，只要题材好，拍成什么烂样子都要捧上天，问就是别人敢拍，那直接看新闻不好？
用了这么长的时长还讲不好故事不是烂片是什么？豆瓣对印度片真是一贯的宽容，只要题材好，拍成什么烂样子都要捧上天，问就是别人敢拍，那直接看新闻不好？
片子本身问题很大，前面卖关子整整两个钟头，看得我昏昏欲睡，看到 20 分钟就看不下去，今晚再看。2小时开始才揭开大幕，情节错综复杂，40分钟压缩太多东西了，主题太多，完全讲不完，重点不明确，又是革命又是政治又是贪腐又是校园政治，核心就是印度自上而下都完了。感觉印度这个国家就是个戏场嘛，就是给印度电影提供素材的
后半段的反转略精彩~结尾有些拖沓，不干脆~
又一神片，呵呵。
任何一个国家如何对待弱势，体力弱势、情感弱势、乃至地位弱势的人，那就是一个国家文明的底线。可是之类的电影看到太多了，尤其是韩国日本印度，却对于社会没有太多进步，仍然是女性权利最低的几个国家。不禁沮丧，电影能救个狗X啊。
2021有《杰伊·比姆》，2022有《宿敌》。两部针砭时弊的印度电影都极度震撼了我。我曾在其他影评中有这样一种观点，好电影能让人从犯困看到不困，差电影可以让人从不困看到犯困。我看本片时已经晚上10点了，已经有些困意了，但是一发而不可收拾，越看越精神，像兴奋剂注入了体内，有比咖啡还要强大的兴奋效果，再一次领略了优秀印度电影的强大感染力。
印度电影，韩国都追不上了，一部电影将政治阴谋，种姓余孽，女性地位，权力操控，官僚贪腐，小镇做题家困境都涵盖了，反转接反转再反转，还审核通过了，最后辨方律师最后那段话，写到国内任何媒体都是马赛克。
2022. 7.11，在这个近期吃瓜，瓜连着瓜，热点一个接一个的当下，结合目前的舆论环境来看这部影片就像是有人替我们喊出了一些声音，被愚弄驯化被操控的人们，睁开眼睛吧，撕开真实世界的一角给你看下，哪里有什么真相？有什么正义？有什么公平？片子结局其实是有点糊了，开场近一个小时的铺垫也稍长，背景音乐也有对点乱剧情，想说的东西也是太多太多，有点溢出，但法庭辩论还原事实部分还是起鸡皮疙瘩的~~~~~推荐一看~~~耐心是美德，尤其是看印度片~~
慢动作煽乐毫无节制，素材不断做加法，
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
