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
荒诞黑喜剧，但是意外地对我的胃口。人性啊。
想象力很好，好到片尾字幕都想一直看完，还是熟悉的配方，始终保持着独特的美学风格，又一个怪诞寓言，实话实说，AI主题没毛病，就是故事性差一些。
人总是想便利，但是便利是个双刃剑，当把主动权交给智能机器人后，也意味着自己处于被管制、对生活失去了掌控权力。人要变成机器，机器要变成人。
Fine. I get it. Too loud.
。。。。让·皮埃尔·热内。 。，似曾相识。。。
再短点会更好 还不够好玩 色彩很好 法国人这皮肤真不行
始终无法理解法式幽默，机器人还是赶紧统治人类算了
哈？纯爱最重要的就是留白啊！留白你懂不懂啊！双视角叙事的电影很多，拍得这么扼杀想象空间的少有。
这片前半暗喻过多显得特别矫情[Emm]，想送编剧去豆瓣反矫组的程度。后半突然直白的告诉你我之前暗示了什么。
疫情电影，人被逼疯，非常无聊，浪费时间，还不如去看一集黑镜。
2022 No.142 / 6.4 / 246 Last：柳如是
意犹未尽，很久没看到这么干净、细腻的电影了，影像质感也很精美。导演在保留着松弛有度的叙事节奏的同时，也不乏展示着自己的一闪灵光，譬如一首一尾大面积的水彩画处理、双重视角的情境拆分、以及致敬是枝裕和惯用的中插纪实采访等，让这个靠情绪往前推动的、非常简单的故事有了很多可以琢磨和回味的点滴。两位女演员一者惊艳、一者耐看，都是特写镜头的宠儿。尤其在处理得这么漂亮的画面下，更显得赏心悦目了。
太压抑了。他们可以让殴打伤口不留痕迹，当然也能让一个人留不下痕迹
意犹未尽，很久没看到这么干净、细腻的电影了，影像质感也很精美。导演在保留着松弛有度的叙事节奏的同时，也不乏展示着自己的一闪灵光，譬如一首一尾大面积的水彩画处理、双重视角的情境拆分、以及致敬是枝裕和惯用的中插纪实采访等，让这个靠情绪往前推动的、非常简单的故事有了很多可以琢磨和回味的点滴。两位女演员一者惊艳、一者耐看，都是特写镜头的宠儿。尤其在处理得这么漂亮的画面下，更显得赏心悦目了。
比最近的漂亮国片子好太多了。到处都是对资本的控诉，但也有人像詹妮弗那样热衷迎接资本的蜜糖（就是脑子不太好使那种）。资本冷酷无情的逻辑和理性最后玩死了自己，人们又回归家庭和人性的温暖。机器人只是表层，就像现在的算法，他们永远在模仿，而不知道自己在模仿什么。导演还是把机器人拟人化了，按照他们的思维是不可能希望变成人的，完全没有这种意图，变成人类也没好处，所以是无所谓的。导演只是借用机器人来表现资本的贪婪和无情而已。在电影这个夕阳产业，不退步已经是最大的进步了，还有人在那逼逼赖赖，也不看看其他片已经烂成什么样了，呵呵
“我这里天气晴好。”
久违的法式喜剧外加新增的科幻元素，是不错的消遣
首先，差一步就颠覆了《机器人三大定律》，而且一开始的广告就说明了反转的必要性，第三，法式浪漫在机器人身上也过了把瘾，第四，就是不确定的未来-想想都可怕的事情。
连看了三部历史题材的反思片，好沉重。愿一切真相不会被掩埋。时长再短一些就好了。#GöteborgFF
我又在镜头前哭得像傻逼一样 从头哭到尾 导演太细节了 各种呼应 摄影太会拍了 动画的引入和导出也很绝 最后的视角转换也很绝 虽然是插叙 叙事很慢 还有大段没有台词的镜头 可是一点也不觉得枯燥 就是很安静 很压抑 很绝的一点是 两人是大学相识 又有同居一年的经历 但是编导几乎没有用篇幅去描述两个人的大学生活和同居生活 却能让我从一个人的视角感受到两人之间的情感 两个人的感情 和两个人的存在 都让我感到“很不现实” 因为太美好了 关于堇为什么要搬出去没太看懂 等我心理状态好的时候二刷
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
