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
国产剧水平的节奏也没拖烂这个绝好的故事，天朝何时能有司法正义片？
来看看世界各国影视制作的突飞猛进！特别是印度这类第三世界国家！
“走出堂皇酒店，每一颗树下都是一户人家”
重要的不是你有什么才能，多大的才能 而是你用你的才能用于何处
字幕有点坑所以观影体验不太好。
血淋淋地展示了底层人民的生存状况。没有土地，住不起砖房，拿着微薄的收入小心翼翼地生活，却仍然不知道何时天降横祸，随时会被警察污蔑犯罪。警察明知犯罪者是谁，可在受贿后闭口不言，随便抓人顶罪，不分青红皂白妄图屈打成招。昏迷过去直接向眼睛撒辣椒粉，为了撤销指控数次威胁家属，大街上把孩子抢走。甚至把人打死后还要污蔑他逃狱，暗地里却把尸体扔在荒野外。触目惊心的画面竟然是根据真实改编，让人窒息。而好的是这不是近年来的案件，并且还能被改编成电影上映，敢于承认且揭露真相，是伟大的举动。
看的时候多次不明白自己为什么要看，一度以为是90年代香港cult片监狱风云。
前面很棒，后面拖拉，印度电影就是有一个老毛病，就喜欢把电影的篇幅拉这么长。
为弱者争取正义，这样主题的电影永远都是值得赞扬的。
种姓歧视，以权谋私，知法犯法。电影的意义大于电影本身，正义值得歌颂。万岁钱德鲁！万岁比姆！
拍摄手法一般，甚至很老套，难得的是这样的题材，而且还是在印度，再过10年中国也未必拍得出这种题材的电影。
丑陋不堪的种姓制度是印度社会的一大顽疾，官官相护的腐败政府，正义之光在呼唤着人性的良知，向詹德鲁律师致敬！
印度版《辩护人》。首先赞扬一下印度电影人一直以来一丝不苟的工匠精神，虽然这也可能与国情有关，但这满满当当将近三个小时的无拖沓剧情，没有一丝的多余剪辑，真是让人肃然起敬。
没什么想说的 只是留了几滴泪 然后拉黑了十几个打1、2星的短评(奇怪 性别非常统一)
根据真实事件改编的电影总是更令人动容，很多法律的颁布背后都有为此付出代价的人。还好虽然他死了，但是正义还在，他的妻子和孩子得到了很好的安置。那个人权律师也真好，6年处理了96000个人权案件。但是印度电影每次时长都好长，而且看的翻译版也是好奇怪，很多翻译都不通顺。
ps,喜欢片中典型的印度电影音乐；
印度人的苦难不需要过多渲染, 诚实的展示出来就能直击人心
2021最后一部电影，印度版更黑暗的秋菊打官司。从剪辑来看有些粗糙，重复感镜头多，部分节奏过慢。真人真事改编，揭开了血淋淋的种姓歧视、警方滥捕无辜屈打致死抛尸路边、受害者申冤无门的黑暗现实。1995年的中国有聂树斌案，2003年有广州孙志刚案，2019年上海小红楼案，然而这些血淋淋的往事早已被大众忘却。年轻一代，忘记了历史等于背叛。
用真实事件歌颂值得给个8分鼓励，尽管从电影制作角度上来说瑕疵一堆，尽管从"他们逃跑了"我就猜到了主角已亡的结论，尽管人性的黑暗体现还不够具体。
期待有朝一日聶樹斌案也能拍成電影，一定更加精彩感人！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
