梁建枫
发表于9分钟前回复 :故事发生在1936年的英国伦敦，里奇（保罗·贝坦尼 Paul Bettany 饰）是一位拥有着大好前途的银行实业家。然而，事业上的成功却并不能弥补里奇婚姻中的缺憾，他和妻子玛德琳（奥莉维亚·威廉姆斯 Olivia Williams 饰）之间的关系早已经名存实亡。玛德琳的妹妹蒂娜（海伦娜·伯翰·卡特 Helena Bonham Carter 饰）要来家中小住，蒂娜是一名艺术家，她那无拘无束的举止和古灵精怪的性格很快就吸引了里奇的注意，随着时间的推移，两人终于决定坦诚相待，越过了伦理和道德的界限。之后，蒂娜怀上了里奇的孩子，遗憾的是，孩子并没有能够平安的诞生，与此同时，里奇亦意识到，对于眼前所发生的一切，一直保持沉默的玛德琳并非一无所知。
刘彩玉
发表于8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
昊天
