尹光
发表于4分钟前
回复
: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
刘邵希
发表于2分钟前
回复
:安家小少爺"安安(安安 飾)"在一年一度的搶孤大會上輸給了死對頭"小黑(陳子強 飾)"&"蜻蜓(鄭同村 飾)",事後雙方相約於鎮前十里坡釘孤支,卻遭一隻名為"宓宓"的小狐狸精搗亂而反被痛打一頓。安安的"管家(陳松勇 飾)"為幫少爺報仇,便趁著"金爺爺(金塗 飾)"的好友"長三"帶著一批趕屍隊前來投宿時,將一隻會使用隱身術、名叫"洪坤"的殭屍給偷走,意圖使負責看管的小黑和蜻蜓受處罰,豈料在搬動過程中洪坤額頭上之符紙遭人撕下,一頭會隱身術的將殭屍便因此在鎮上四處咬人,金爺爺也因此被"保安隊長(胖三 飾)"逮捕入獄,隱身殭屍洪坤則落入安安爸爸"安平(黃仲裕 飾)"的師父"何祖師爺"手中,為求長生不死,何祖師爺煞費苦心建了一座異次元紙屋,接著將抓來的洪坤放進紙屋中做他的打手,並將小狐狸精宓宓和"小殭屍(洪竟原 飾)"也一起抓進紙屋中,要它們做他永遠的僕人,小黑、蜻蜓、安安和金爺爺的孫女"娟娟(李宜娟 飾)"為將宓宓和小殭屍救出而闖進紙屋中,但他們卻不曉得一旦進入紙屋便永遠無法出去,除非...