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
I feed on you. I feed on your touch, your rage, your melancholy, your grief, your wrath, your jealousy, your troubles, your love. But it has to be your last drip of blood before death that makes me finally become you.
- 本年度最佳恐怖片(截止到发评为前)
3.5/母亲节前后放映很应景；生命就是一种母婴遗传病，治好了就是《turning red》，治不好就是这部片子或者《黑天鹅》（不是……影片中的符号都比较好理解，男性也一如既往地充当着或怯懦或随和的背景板；可能对于已经变得cynical的观众来说，这类主题和表现方式已经很难造成什么感官之外的触动了……
黑暗怪异的现代童话。就像，杜鹃鸟会把蛋下在其他鸟的鸟巢中，孵化出的后代将杀死并替代原生的雏鸟。
最后小女孩和她的家人一样，全部都变成了鸟人。
全片暖色系的背景却用了灰冷的色调调配，在惬意的色彩包裹之下，呈现的依然是芬兰电影独有的压抑氛围。母亲博客中看似和谐幸福的原生家庭，却是危机重重各怀心事。一家四口如同复刻般「虚伪笑容」的背后，隐藏的是一颗颗自私功利的心。母亲畸形变态的所谓「爱」如同一张大网牢牢的将女孩锁住，无力挣脱之下借由「蛋」孵化出内心的「恶」。影片节奏非常不错，隐喻与氛围感极强，对于女孩内心挣扎的刻画细腻出彩，开放式结局也耐人深思，算是精品。
不过，还是选择4星
具备很深的教育意义，适合家长和老师观看。现代教育要从唯分数论到关注其他更重要的东西，比如爱的教育，素质教育等等。我们大人跟孩子沟通的桥梁就是童话故事，如果没有童话世界，我们就相隔更远，更为陌生。孩子是我们的老师，教育也是我们的必修课，通过孩子的眼睛，我们可以看到更多不一样的角度，不能自以为是。
不得不说，拍的是真差！毁了我童年小说。集体作弊是什么鬼？！
艾丽是自然的承载女主底层欲望的存在，所以女主每动念头，艾丽就会行动，并像脱缰的野马一样难以控制。直到女主善良的一面让她认识到事情的严重，不惜摔伤自己也要救下baby。艾丽就像个雏鸟，为了母亲脱掉自己不像人类的鸟嘴，女主对待雏鸟就如母亲对待她。在人类让她失望后，张大嘴巴却回不到鸟形。。最后结局咔嚓一下我没看懂。
孵化出的小女孩演技比原本的小女孩演技好几个档，也是挺惊悚的。
是孩童对逼仄窒息的成人世界难得的一点反抗和质问，有着熟悉的郑渊洁味道。制作上有些简陋，人物形象刻板脸谱化，有些低龄，还是适合启发家长和小孩子的。
谷阿莫难得的一边讲一边分析，因为鸟人有可能是真的，也有可能是女孩精神分裂的表现。
畸形家庭环境下的女儿把内心的阴暗面“孵化”成了与自己一模一样的实体，或许这个“自己”更适合这个病态的家庭
构思还不错，就是制作成本低了，拍不出很多惊悚片的感觉来，欧洲小国电影只能这样了？
[视]R血，预告配乐不错。体操开局，自带BT属性，有伤退役望女成龙为母系铃。带面具的弟弟，带眼镜的父子，乌鸦埋狗，中场换别墅，迷你城堡经典物件，教育理念碰撞<瞬息全宇宙>，直播元素，镜子墙纸。一人分饰两角，有意往精分方向发展，模糊时空逻辑，结尾倾向回归怪兽类型，开放结局，裂唇，断手，拾人牙慧，李代桃僵，为人母，人为母
芬兰迪库诺。导演说对她影响最大的电影是《小岛惊魂》，最喜欢的导演是黑泽明，本片有参考《ET》和《变蝇人》。
50/100 以母女关系为切入点，对和谐的家庭关系下暗流涌动的危机做解剖和演变，女儿最终在母亲的严苛之下完成了毁灭，取而代之的是邪恶异化变体的重生。但整体来看，高开都没做到，也就中开低走吧，过度的反差感淹没了应有的神秘气质
电影真正的重伤大概是没有那种引人入胜的浸入感吧。剧情对成年人吸引不够。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
