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
这些年一出来恐怖片就是伪纪录片，真他妈恶心！一点创新都没有！恐怖片已死！愚弄傻逼，傻逼还乐！
还真是个伪伪纪录片，但凡信仰的设定没那么大杂烩，吓人的程度都能翻几番。
这个设定其实很有意思，jump scare的安插也没有盲目模仿欧美，说晦气，只想笑，社会新闻只会比电影更加晦气。我觉得该题材有所不足的地方是剪辑太乱，配乐多余，另外不知道经费原因还是怎样，每个设备的画质居然惊人相似，所以作为found footage有点出戏。讲到底，虽然道具制作很用心，甚至超过一些欧美恐怖片，但最后来看还是功力不够，所以在我心里至多5/10，但是很想鼓励一下国语恐怖片，所以打这个分数。另外，导演什么时候来dreadit做个AMA，我有问题想问你！
觉得《咒》晦气的，大抵是这辈子都不配看到好的恐怖片。笔仙筷仙等一大堆优质国产可怕片适合您。
这个片子之所以看后让人反感，就是因为给观众下降头，就像小时候看机器猫中的一集里野比收到了不幸的信一样，而这种打破第四面墙的手法我个人很不喜欢，类似的片子还有《趣味游戏》，和我对那个电影的评价一样，只有毫无职业操守的导演，才会以戏虐观众为乐。
几个自寻死路的人拍下了死亡录像带，看的人听的人都会挂掉。内容说不上很恐怖，但是故事背景的设定多了一种东方宗教的神秘色彩，而且伪纪录片的形式很好的放大了这种，甚至主角在影片的开头结束还与观众互动的环节，让人更好的感受到这种恐怖的沉浸感。一切诡异源于一种神秘的诅咒，影片没有太大的篇幅去说明这种诅咒的来龙去脉，而且着重描写了这种诅咒的恐怖笼罩下的不安的人心，特别像美国、日本同类题材的手法。
华语恐怖电影的飞跃，和观众的互动，包括最后的反转。还有会叫观众观影后去想想。都做的不错，包括大家都说结局下头。我感觉这才是高明之处，一下也把观众拉进故事里来。还有光影的配合都不错！
想知道蓬蓬乳和空手指的合体是怎么样的吗？赶紧来感受这个来自导演的恶意吧，哈哈哈。
很好，模仿痕迹太重。小演员没有镜头感，太强了
被自私的婆娘骗了，现在起码豆辦有上万人正共同分享着一个诅咒，也许我活不过今晚了，那就请这篇短评成为我最后的文字吧。电影拍得很诡异，大多数宗教类恐怖片都是如此，恐怖效果也还可以，平时不敢看恐怖片的影迷肯定会被吓到，小孩子看了会成为童年阴影，但相信大多数恐怖片爱好者都不会觉得多么恐怖。不喜欢本片混乱的叙事以及节奏的拖沓，还有就是作为伪记录片，片中有太多镜头都明显不是通过主角的摄像机拍摄的了，还不如不以这种形式拍摄。宗教类恐怖片向来不是我喜欢的类型，我反而更喜欢
能看到《鬼影实录》、《午夜凶铃》、《VHS》、《仲夏夜惊魂》等一票经典恐怖影像的杂糅，以及用烂的伪纪录效果。
想起小学时有收到那种诅咒信，要转发给多少人就没事，要不就有血光之灾什么的，天生善良的我抄回信手都抄痛了，也不知道是哪些幸（dao）运（mei）儿（dan）收到过~
得多，但我就吃那一套。哪怕本片纯粹是一部"妈妈爱女儿"的催泪片我也能接受。p.s.小女孩很可爱，看到未成年人受苦实在不好受。
像极了早年间网络上疯传的恶意诅咒邮件，制作组真是充满了恶意。给我点赞，诅咒自动反弹给制作组！
利用了视觉停留创意十足，就是观感不太好，眼睛都要瞎了，最后还跟观众开了个玩笑，导演还是很有想法的。
挺恐怖的，没敢仔细看。有神无神姑且不谈，互相尊重是最基本的原则。
7.8 技巧稚嫩之外，沒有失望，民俗宗教很能戳中我的点。看着看着把空调都关了，夏日清凉
看到导演和编剧既是剪辑又是副导演，还有别的身份身兼数职，就觉得这片子拍得也挺不容易有必要加一星。会学习应该是大华语区的影视创作者的传统艺能，都是学来的技法，加上本土元素搭一搭就开始似模似样了。最后来一个“祝福”观众我真的会谢……
（原评被删一次，不知道是不是导演的诅咒开始生效了……） 临！兵！斗！者！皆！阵！列！在！前！诛邪！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
