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
怎样定义“公正”，每个人的角度不同，答案也很可能是不同的。法律是有不完善的地方，也有徇私枉法的官员，但法律必须要发挥衡量公正的天平作用，而不是靠某个人用职业经验的“小聪明”来维护，那是对“公正”非常危险的“挑衅”。
監獄裡拿牙刷捅人那一段看著好揪心。。結局是好的。。現實中也會這樣嗎？
只有有钱人才能对抗有钱人，穷人，看什么电影，挣钱去aq
不像电影，像tvb剧的一集。最后真凶能够归案不是法律和公理的胜利，全靠死者父亲的地位和财力。这个设置让整个故事的内核都变得很没说服力。看在廖叔份上给个三星吧。
即便是一个阳光普照的社会，也总有阴影，也总得吃饭，既然公义不能当饭吃，那就吃饱饭再行动了，雷律师在这一点上想的清清楚楚明明白白
方中信廖启智的表演还是很到位的。
男二律师演的太水了吧，是带资进组吗？故事 演技 节奏不行，电影都不如电视剧，不如TVB 不如傲骨贤妻里的一集内容。
港剧的质感，拍的不错，但是故事很套路没有创新
主要是，方中信现在，真的很难不有一些daddy issue的……
给法律相关的题材分，还是好看的，但感觉内容剧情更似一集电视剧的能量密度
老演员越来越少了
我还以为看了个老片，是之前几个人演的律政剧的电影版，然而剧本人物摄影灯光极其粗制滥造，但又特别想看演员舒服的演技，太奇怪了，硬是靠演员撑起了三星！
香港电影连寻求正义都需要由富商内讧才能达成了，悲哀
【247/166】这是廖启智先生的遗作。但这并不是传统的老牌港片，一众老戏骨撑起了并无太大波澜的剧情，基本上开场没多久就能猜到最终的结局如何…这大概不是法律正义的体现吧，而是双方权贵之间的斗争，必有输赢！
浪费了演员配置，打败魔法的还是魔法不是现实
所以影片的主旨是确实有什么凌驾于法律之上，比如财富。被害人的父亲如果不是大亨，真凶就能逍遥法外？
演员很努力地在表演了 但剧作实在太普通了
船上飙戏那段看的很过瘾，结尾雷大状那番话很引人深思，我们究竟要给下一代一个什么样的世界，感谢还有人为了正义和平等坚持下去
剧本整体是有港片味道的，尤其对于看过《律政强人》的来说，本剧一直被调侃为律政强人的影版后续，只不过，张强仍在，与其对决的却不是KC了。
最后五分钟bgm好高级
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
