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
有点掉书袋和刻意了。最喜欢是鸡蛋故事的首尾呼应以及电影中的光影。
朴卡卡在室内开个会还戴墨镜，青瓦台是黑社会的老巢吗？
最后停在“而徐昌大并不在那里” 啧 意韵有了啊 / 首尾用鸡蛋的故事来体现人 妙啊 / 还有金云范这么理想化的政客 才是这个片子最童话的部分啊
柏拉图是亚里士多德的老师。
对付君子有君子的办法，对付小人就只能用诡计。国民是盲目的，只要是对的，最终的胜利者采用的过程手段都是有阴暗的一面。
既是解药也是毒药，金云范最终知道了影子的使用方法
能把政治剧拍得像悬疑片也只有韩国了。其实虽然看起来金像是个正直的政治家，但最后爆炸案的悬念也是为了推翻其人设，政治家中国式政治家，包括对影子的遗弃，实际上也是为了防止将来被篡权之类吧。最后两人在小饭店相聚有点多余，当然也可以看做是金那啥还要立牌坊~
3.5 卞成贤自不汗党以来的野心越发明显，操刀正剧历史（虚构）事件里的说客与政治家的形象，受欲望吞噬、无所不用其极的影子&自有底线、理想主义、自下而上的梦想家，工具的价值是社会环境附加的还是载体特有的？这个问题仍然没有得到答案，电影在金成为候选人后丧失了焦距，卞缺乏了终结故事的能力。另：薛景求的表演隐忍克制，李的表演匍匐激烈，但我果然更喜欢卞镜头里的韩宰虎很多。
其实，他们本来心里想的就是一码事，只不过有人要说出来，有人要做出来。
在法制不健全的情形下，结果正义更重要。
这部电影简直就是浪漫啊 韩国为啥能把政治电影拍的这么浪漫 整部电影下来没有一个镜头是多余的 真的是太强了 太强了 我超级中意
柏拉图说：如果做得事情是正义的，那就可以不择手段。即便再有崇高的理想，想要开创一个正义的世界，也需要一些特殊的手段来开辟道路。
画面感很强，故事性缺少一些冲突，明明很刺激 给人的感觉倒不是很强烈
非常韩味，有点流水线工厂货的感觉，但编导演都非常到位，韩国电影现在已经形成自己的风格了，让你无可挑剔，题材不受限制是韩国电影能超越好莱坞成为世界第一的重要原因。
既要能让有良知的人上位，也要允许台面下的阴影存在。但无法反过来，阴影就是见光死，然而阴影未必无良知。
别人开启民智的时代，我们没有沉默，我们选择了倒退。
政治是男人之间的爱情！影片拍出了尔虞我诈的可笑丑陋。男人之间的爱情就是这么倒胃口
政治场永远迷雾缭绕，它不能凌厉、只能含糊是因为转不明白，到最后影子这个符号已经解剖不出什么来了，只剩“光线越亮，阴影越深”的论证杵在这里。
他怎么能这么说？
薛景求和李善均演技一流，真的没话说，但是剧本在剧情方面简直沉闷到像在看纪录片，明明是一个《纸牌屋》似的政治惊悚底子，却拍的如此沉闷，也是导演的水平，再加上人物矛盾的幼稚化处理，让本该像《南山的部长们》一样大爆的剧只能作为冷门片草草收场。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
