首页 更多
佳人直播在线观看免费 相关解答

更新时间: 2024-05-23 1:38:04
提问时间: 2024-05-07
提问时间: 2024-05-19
解答时间: 2024-04-09

剧情介绍:  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
提问时间: 2024-04-06
解答时间: 2024-03-31

剧情介绍:  《櫂》的故事始于大正三年即1914年初夏,其时正值梅子初熟。绪形拳饰演的富田岩伍是高知县的一个艺妓中介人,这是一个卑贱的职业。他的妻子富田喜和端庄贤淑,深受邻里敬重,却也为丈夫的职业而感到羞愧。富田岩伍对此心知肚明,在跟妻子的谈话中他吐露了内心将此视作奋斗的起点。这是一个略显简朴却温暖的家庭,除了恩爱夫妻外,还有两个差不多大小的儿子龙太郎和健太郎;在拮据的日子里,这对善良的夫妇甚至还收留了一个养女菊。当故事进入第二幕也就是12年后的昭和元年时,这个家庭发生了一些变化,儿女长大成人,岩伍开了一间剧座,为了生意绞尽脑汁。似乎都是生活里常见的烦恼,但不谐的音符就在此时出现,大儿子龙太郎身染沉疴,深居不出;岩伍雇了一个歌女前来演出,对他了解颇深的艺妓染勇告诫他不要被歌女勾引。紧接着,这个家庭的裂缝开始显现:龙太郎被查出患有肺结核,这在当时几乎是不治之症;当喜和前去寻找岩伍商议时,却看见他正跟歌女厮混……  对于第一幕相敬如宾的夫妻来说,这个意外的变故极其突然,瞬间就为家庭的解体揭开序幕。对于叙事来说,这是一个突如其来的戏剧转折,在此前的叙事里,我们一直以为这对夫妻依然恩爱如昔,但场面转瞬就撕开温情脉脉的面纱,将生活的本质赤裸呈现。这是一个强而有力的转折,它不仅呈现了角色面对转折时内心所面临的冲击,也将这种感受成功地传递给观众。从叙事的进展来说,这个转折虽然有效,但是缺乏必要的铺垫,它把岩伍就此推向了负面的存在,使我们认知这一人物的进程被中断。比较起第一幕中人物从无到有的建构,这一处理由建构形成解构,人物立刻变得含混。由这一转折开始,岩伍家开始解体。先是夫妻分居;然后龙太郎被殴打身亡,健太郎因此杀人而被关进监狱;岩伍决定为龙太郎复仇,欲向黑道大佬谷川宣战……对于家庭来说,这是存亡的最后关头,但也以此为契机促成了喜和的回归,在她的劝说下,岩伍隐忍不发,家庭得以保全。这一幕最后,家庭再次回归平衡,虽然有成员永久离开,也有岩伍与歌女的私生女綾子进入家庭。  故事的第三幕时空再次跳跃至十年后。一开始,家庭延续着一团和气,綾子进入小学读书,聪明伶俐;菊似乎嫁给了鱼贩;染勇计划让妹妹跟还在服刑的健太郎结婚,得到岩伍的许可;岩伍的中介生意已经有了规模。但此后麻烦接踵而至。岩伍被人刺杀,侥幸逃脱,但车夫却为他丧命;得知消息的喜和焦急不已,却引发暗疾,被送入医院,检查出患有肿瘤,危在旦夕;负伤的岩伍来医院探望,为她祈祷,最后喜和奇迹般生还,夫妻情感因为患难与共而得以巩固。但当岩伍前去探望车夫家人时,却被车夫的寡妇遗孀所吸引。戏剧转折再次突如其来,家庭面临着新一轮的解体。夫妻再次分居,这一次喜和不但被丈夫所弃,也被出狱的健太郎所弃,最后甚至被自己的哥嫂所弃。唯一还维系着家庭纽带的,是一心向着喜和的小女孩綾子。故事最后,喜和将綾子送回给岩伍,孤身一人离开了这个伤心地……