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
不用说百年之前，即便是当下，也有很多人只能写自己的“玆山鱼谱”。看了一些近代史，最令人感慨的是风风雨雨之下依然坚持下来的那些人。可是，可是，道阻且长，何处求索？
【A-】
彩色的星空，海胆里的雏鸟
但是呢，我们却从未拍出来过
宗教信仰、士大夫、被贬、流放、孤独、目之所及皆是蛮荒、黑白山水、撰写鱼谱；贱命、被身份与权利裹挟、成为师徒、互相拯救、路途不同、不能理解那样的境界、用自己所见验证了老师的教诲、伤离别。羡慕这个传承了我们的文化、被污名为“偷国”的小国，能拍出这样（我们不敢拍也不能说）的电影，更嫉妒他们的影迷，能在电影院里沉下心来，好好欣赏这么一部浸透了文学悲伤（我国那些诗人早就表达过）的佳作。
同一种理学，衍化出师徒两个人观念的冲突。全片都是“论语”、“大学”等中华思想，但面对外来文化的态度，他们却衍生出自己的看法。最后感叹一句：黑白片唯一有色的蓝鸟是什么？是希望吗？在我现在所处的时代，我没看到。
杰伊比姆是光，杰伊比姆是爱，杰伊比姆是黑暗通向光明的道路，杰伊比姆是数百万人眼角的泪水。
前半段流放后的生活描写非常轻松，后半段的求官之路又令人深思，理想与现实相悖，不经让人一阵唏嘘。
特別喜歡，這種讀書不為名利，只為求知的故事。雖說百無一用是書生，但書生卻能仰望星空。
具有现代性的历史片，老师的意思是主义先放一边，务实搞研究吧。还有字幕组加的那段话真是太黑色幽默了。
到现在张口就来的种姓制，步入社会几年才算明白，在一些民智未开的地方只不过换了个看起来更高端的样子存在：士、X、工、农、X
能饒有興趣的看下去說明拍的不錯。
水墨风的黑白色调，却意外地合适。儒学当道，本该以仁义治世，然非但容不下西洋学，将其贬为邪学，亦以百姓为农田，官僚上下串通，层层剥削，几近腐臭。若铨学问再多，儒学佛学西洋学样样精通，却无施展之地，腹中空有书墨，积郁成疾，入黑山后与昌大交往中渐悟，终顺应内心回归自然，书《兹山鱼谱》，既是避世，亦是求实，也承师徒情谊之重，成一美谈。
满怀热情和希望，观影2小时40分钟，虽然有虐的部分，但结局很圆满，正义得到了伸张，朕心甚安。他们有不计报酬，只为正义而战的律师，有不出卖良心，秉公调查案件的警察，更重要的有公平执法的法官，何其幸运。据说这是一部真实事件背景的影片，禁不住琢磨，如果换一块土壤，结局还会是如此吗？
直击20世纪90年代印度阶级社会不平等现象，揭露其阶级优越性和黑金政治相融合的劣根性问题。佩鲁马尔萨米：“为了坚持民主，总得有某些时代的人成为独裁者，这是真理。”冠冕堂皇，美其名曰，大言不惭。威胁，恐吓，伪造案件，民主的外衣掩盖不了执法暴力的本质。还好他还有良知，还好正义只是迟到，不是缺席。
讳疾忌医会病入膏肓，早日敢于正视或还有治愈的希望
一流的剧本和表演。师徒互为对照。年轻的徒弟入仕为官后才懂人微力薄，老师教不会他的，经历把他教会了。无力改善民生，但学过的诗文印在心里，也斩断了同流合污的可能。实现不了经世致用的理想，却能在孤独清净的生活里守心守道。知识在儒学里、在科学里，也在兹山上大大小小的鱼类中。
有点可惜，有的地方还是有开挂神片的影子，男主的塑造不是很饱满，同类型的《辩护人》更优秀一些。希望印度人民早日领悟一句话：打土豪，分田地
在乌托邦的世界里想象世界，远大抱负，不屑一顾；在现实的生存中，尔虞我诈，不堪入目。最终明白了师父是一种怎样的境界，写一本关于鱼的书，虽然没有看到春暖花开，但那种境界无人能及。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
