候尼勋
发表于6分钟前回复 :Fist Of Fury III stars Bruce Li as the brother of Bruce Lee's character who after accomplishing revenge on the Japanese fighters that killed his brother, returns to take care of his mother and live in the country. Determined to live a peaceful life he finds himself forced into action as Japanese thugs follow him and make his life miserable. Fist Of Fury III is way better than Fist Of Fury II, but (of course) not up to the standard of Bruce Lee's original. This one is a standard kung fu cheapie in all arenas, except that the fights are better handled, the story develops the vengeance angle fairly well and in fact has a great climax involving a thunderstorm that basically adds to the action's overall mood. Once again it's no great masterpiece and Bruce Li, while charismatic, is not Bruce Lee but as far as kung fu movies go this is as good as these things get. Another nice touch is bringing back the English Intrepeter from Bruce Lee's Return Of The Dragon, as well as crisp directing during the action in the style of Bruce Lee's original. It's nothing worth going out of your way to locate, but if found in the bargain bin or in a Kung Fu movie collection, it's worth picking up.
胡吗个
发表于3分钟前回复 :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
