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
李濬益太适合拍这种关于儒学反思的电影，节奏的把握、构图的巧妙，方寸间，见天、见地、见人；与《思悼》聚焦于儒家父父子子君君臣臣不同，《兹山鱼谱》更多是文化与文化、文化与信仰、信仰与信仰的冲撞，学而不思则罔，思而不学则怠，学海本无涯，知识又何来贵贱之分；而教化本该是为民开智，却最终成了政权的无形之刃。若世间不能按所学而活，不如顺性格而活，可无论走哪条路，都该“得志泽加于民，不得志修身见于世”。P.S.薛景求和卞耀汉不愧双双提名。
师父开场，徒弟收尾，是有点视点偏移，也由此带来主题的多元（混乱）。尽管如此，仍看得很感动。
2、影片表面上讲的是一个贬谪士大夫的流亡生活，道出的却是人生意义的真相——所谓人生的意义，其实只是自己的事。你觉得有意义，那就有意义。由此想到一句话：知识都是灰色的，而生活的金树长青！说得真好。
这个电影的好不仅是技术性的，剧本在文学与商业间的平衡与圆熟，摄影的画意乃至衣冠士林生态的完整，更是东方精神性的，古代儒家士大夫的流迁生涯首次成为故事核心完整表现，有人类比苏东坡不过是挑个名人，儒耶之争更可追摹的其实是明代徐光启，儒学、实学与神学的交锋至今回响，21世纪梵蒂冈封圣仍映照在上海徐家汇天主堂前。另看到嘉庆字样才反应过来此时已是清代，大明衣冠再不复矣。
很舒服，感觉像回到了高中的语文课堂，背景改换到了西学东进的时期，但是《思悼》中对儒学的反思依然得以保持，《思悼》聚焦于宫廷权力，而《兹山鱼谱》中聚焦的人物更小，一个流放官员和一个渔夫，师徒二人相互传道授业解惑，又选择了两个不同的道路，充分展现了文化的碰撞，对儒学主导官僚体制的批判，正如丁若铨问昌大的那个问题:读书为了什么，做了官真的可以出淤泥而不染，一心为民么，电影反而给出了另一个选择:如白鹤之生虽好，而玆山之污泥亦善也，看完后在羡慕韩国电影人的同时，也希望我们这么有文化底蕴的国家也能拍这样的历史题材。（8.5/10）
看完不禁想问一句，那些只会用流量明星拍狗屁爱情剧娘炮综艺的中国影视制作人你们汗颜么？！人家一个半岛小国是怎么对汉文化的传承，学以致用！SMH。。。
苏轼！苏轼啊！！！美食！！文化！！诗歌！！历史！！！中国电影人在搞什么！！！捶胸顿足！！！
如果这是认真调研、展现历史阶段的真相，以及抒发以物喻人之情怀，那果然成功落实了我对韩影、孔孟、士大夫生活的一切刻板负面印象。吵吵嚷嚷的朝鲜话、喜怒说来就来的表演型国民人格、啰嗦乏味的文化自信，终于逼着我一段段快进了，以及重要的个人原因——我不吃鱼！
三十看一半初一看一半，后半段看得大哭。文化自信并不是追着全世界让把农历新年喊中国新年，文化自信是无论日韩，汉字就是王炸，承认不承认都是客观事实。希望我们也能拍出这么慢斯条理又打动人心的电影。🙂
想螺蛳壳里作道场，以小博大却力不能逮。相较日影，韩片完全不擅长说教思辨体悟自省这一类题材，台词不凝炼，意像不典型，情节不自然，片中的几首汉诗水平不敢恭维。无论中学西学儒教天主教，对于韩国而言都是舶来品，反思二手文化总显得隔靴搔痒。在匮乏深厚底蕴的情况下强行人文关怀蛮尴尬的，几番坐而论道也流于形式，空洞苍白机锋乏力，做不到醍醐灌顶。如果只企求国产片拍到这种流俗肤浅的水平，无疑是低估了中国文化的格局和气度，也低估了中国人反躬自省的能力和深度。
不可错过的一部黑白电影，用出世的心态来获取人生，用入世的渴望来造福于民，很难说谁更胜一筹，只是时势造就
导演说是预算不足才拍成黑白的…电影不错，但没有获取到新的内容
左迁的士大夫，很少见的题材，看到丁若铨的样子不禁想象当年的老李老杜老苏。电影试图讨论的东西很多，中西学的碰撞，阶级的斗争，本心与野心的抉择等等，看似庞杂，好在都统一在深沉的人文氛围之下。黑白画面为电影增色不少，昌大初时的粗布衣裳和后来的绸缎衣衫的质感对比在黑白画面下显得尤为强烈。昌大钓鱼致敬老人与海也是小而亮眼的巧思。
用中华文化做着人家电影的文化输出，算你厉害！
算是不错的韩国历史片了，虽然仍有流水账的嫌疑
7/10 薛景求是在给对面那小伙子上演技课么
吐槽1：关于故事，立意混乱，展现儒学在王权和西学之间的尴尬混杂着师生情强行催泪，兼顾两头，结果两头都没照顾好。那还不如抽象化思想冲突借助捕鱼这条线到达一种双向历练，（类似《闻香识女人》类型），换言之看似高深的政治线作用微薄
之前看到有评论说很可惜，这剧本可以国内拍的，看完觉得纯属放屁，这内核是大陆不可能拍出来且上映的
202105做好我们的选择。做一些微不足道的小事，自己拯救自己，就像我看园子写东西一样，未来或许有用也未可知。
好有趣，确实我国还没拍过这样一部反映贬谪名士的优秀电影。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
