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
私人回忆又不注重故事叙事该怎么建立共情还是需要不断探索的事情/看着美又累 太多设计过的镜头 仰拍 进一步割裂了本来就不强的情感连接 分成短片或许还行 放一起作为长片实在不太行
{★★☆} 这不是个轻松的决定：我相信Kenneth Branagh童年的图像，也相信他在镜头后忠于这份图像。但看完后数日，我脑内却难以回忆起几个这部致敬Branagh所成长街区的电影里，在那条街区上生活的被挤压、坚守或放弃的人们。就像孩子模糊的念想，贝尔法斯特变成了一个抽象的概念。有地标、有伤痕、有欢笑，却没有一个让他不舍离去的理由。
对生活在那里的那一代人来说是很珍贵的记忆。很小的叙事，最佳剧本与往届相比略有过誉
2.5 私人到没有野心，布拉纳只是通过汲取诸位养分完成了一次记忆的还原，技法的相似不代表即是罗马或者戴维斯的再现。
Oh Van Morrison. 工作日选择看这个完全是因为时长亲人，意外地挺喜欢的，黑白摄影虽然比不上《罗马》和《冷战》，但质朴的视角更显乡愁（也可能可以少做旧一些细节？）。童言无忌，童稚时无法接受变化，心碎的离开和道别，回不去的是旧日和故乡。
肯爵的童年自传片？选择离开真的是一件很难的事情，对离开的人来说是这样，对留下的人来说同样如此。
结尾Judi Dench特写镜头的短短三句台词 堪称演技大赏 也是全片高光时刻
故事比较琐碎，我还是喜欢更戏剧化一些的故事，但理解拍摄者的这种处理方式，从一个小孩子平淡的日常生活的角度来看国家民族的冲突，人物、氛围都很有感觉。
Jamie演技肉眼可见的增长，提名男配值得的~
烂片有技术层面和心理层面的，这部片子算是全占了，开头的语言让我以为是八月，但之后打破预期一路下跌，浮夸难看，情感层面故事太过差劲，感情抡不圆，跟着时间走…
请允许一个没有护照的人肆意妄为的臆测一下，本片能提名奥斯卡最佳影片候选名单完全是熟人文化的恶果！关注好莱坞二十八年，从未见过如此平庸的M TV串烧片！白瞎了本该珍视的历史题材和女主很耐看的45度侧颜。
看完感觉听辨爱尔兰口音的能力变强了。影片由多组日常生活片段构成，又不乏对北爱尔兰新教与天主教冲突的历史背景勾画，暴力与混乱被孩童的视角柔和，依赖门窗街巷自然形成的框架进行构图，体现对立与和解的关系。互文性作为点缀，将发生在他处的文化和故事穿插其中，比如电影中出现的几部电影、奶奶幻想中的香格里拉（还提到了《消失的地平线》）、小男孩看的阿加莎克里斯蒂等。有几处很动人的瞬间，最喜欢的是母亲气急败坏地拉着儿子把趁乱抢来的洗衣粉（？）送回商店，却恰巧被劫为人质的桥段，每一个转折都很精准。
3.黑白压抑，我还以为用黑白是有什么深意，但是感觉导演就是为了用黑白而用黑白，就是喜欢黑白，可能
其实任何作者在拍给家乡的电影都会因为很浓的情绪没法评价，在我心中（罗马）是封神的。本片只能拿45分。
年度观影 No.507
7.7分#献给贝尔法斯特往昔的一封黑白情书💌片子中善良快乐的情绪远超那份沉重，想看后来巴蒂有没有回来娶到凯瑟琳～ p.s.怀念北爱街头漫步的快乐时光
不晓得是不是因为肯尼斯布拉纳的缘故，觉得这片“戏剧”感好强，每个角色都洋溢着一股排练多次的“过熟感”(其实就是失真)。看了20分钟后，我找到了一种观看方式，不要把它当做那个年代贝尔法斯特普通一家人的日常生活，把它当做肯尼斯的颅内小剧场，会比较好接受。拿《罗马》来比是有点抬咖，我先想到的是《八月》。顺便说：为什么詹米多南穿着白衬衫系着领带，还是给我一种没穿衣服的感觉。
爱尔兰的历史纠缠是影片的背景，爷爷奶奶是全片亮点，然而总体上觉得缺点真实感，仿佛看到了存在于记忆中的片段，与主角小孩越近越真切，远些的就有点虚了。
罗马拿奖才几年啊，就这么迫不及待地抄袭？布拉纳没有任何想法和深度，就靠糊成灰的黑白摄影，廉价笑话和毫无意义的长镜头给自己贴金
能润就不错了，还纠结那么多有的没的，好凡尔赛哦
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
