In 1860 Paris, chemist Louis Pasteur is considered a quack within the medical community for advocating that doctors and surgeons wash their hands and boil their instruments to destroy microbes that can kill their patients. He came across this belief when discovering microscopic organisms in sour wine which could be killed if heated sufficiently. The belief among the scientific ...
(展开全部)
In 1860 Paris, chemist Louis Pasteur is considered a quack within the medical community for advocating that doctors and surgeons wash their hands and boil their instruments to destroy microbes that can kill their patients. He came across this belief when discovering microscopic organisms in sour wine which could be killed if heated sufficiently. The belief among the scientific community at large is that the organisms are the result of disease and not the cause. This belief is despite the fact that 30% of women die in childbirth due to childbed disease, accounting for 20,000 annual deaths in Paris alone. The debate takes Pasteur all the way to a meeting with Emperor Napoleon III and his physician, Dr. Charbonnet, who is one of the leading opponents of Pasteur. Several years later, France is a republic and much of Pasteur's reputation changes as a government sanctioned experiment with anthrax and sheep shows that a vaccine created by Pasteur proves effective. As Pasteur begins work on finding the cause and a cure for rabies, which proves a more difficult challenge, he still has his detractors, including Dr. Charbonnet. This continuing debate brings about his biggest challenge: proving that microbes are the cause of all disease. Through it all, he is supported not only by his family, but Dr. Jean Martel, who was once a junior physician in the emperor's court and a physician within the republic's government, but who now works with Pasteur and is his son-in-law. But an act of bravado by Charbonnet may ultimately prove to be the breakthrough for which Pasteur is looking. Moving the experimental treatments from animals to humans proves a bigger obstacle, as is Charbonnet's need to win at all cost in the court of public opinion.
较早的那一代有声片巨星里， Paul Muni是当年在演技方面被神化得最厉害的，也是如今看来表演最过火、最不适合大银幕的。他的表情在特写里显得过分夸张，朗诵式的念白直接拖慢成片节奏，早期的两部代表作Scarface和I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang因为本身故事冲突强、角色也没完美光环让他拼命用力、又有好导演把控，他表演上的问题会被适度掩盖；等到了歌颂式的人物传记片...较早的那一代有声片巨星里， Paul Muni是当年在演技方面被神化得最厉害的，也是如今看来表演最过火、最不适合大银幕的。他的表情在特写里显得过分夸张，朗诵式的念白直接拖慢成片节奏，早期的两部代表作Scarface和I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang因为本身故事冲突强、角色也没完美光环让他拼命用力、又有好导演把控，他表演上的问题会被适度掩盖；等到了歌颂式的人物传记片，再摊上William Dieterle这样叙事也不大讲效率的导演，从角色本身的塑造到影片整体（当然这二者本来也不可分割），呈现出来的效果简直是灾难。(展开)
万世流芳的短评 · · · · · · ( 全部 23 条 )
2 有用 罚款时间y 看过 2020-01-09 22:56:12
7分。这部电影的观影过程太艰辛了，光是调英文字幕的字幕轴就调了半天，加上本片前半部分过多的医学用语，看的还挺辛苦的。不过还好本片不是一部难看的电影。本片是法国微生物学家路易斯巴斯德的传记电影，本片也是一部相当传统的人物传记电影，平铺直叙没有任何拐弯抹角，甚至可以说有点俗套。但是影片本身的品质还不错，加上影片是一部30年代的电影，也不必过分苛求，还是值得一看的。保罗穆尼在本片中的表演肯定不是其最佳表... 7分。这部电影的观影过程太艰辛了，光是调英文字幕的字幕轴就调了半天，加上本片前半部分过多的医学用语，看的还挺辛苦的。不过还好本片不是一部难看的电影。本片是法国微生物学家路易斯巴斯德的传记电影，本片也是一部相当传统的人物传记电影，平铺直叙没有任何拐弯抹角，甚至可以说有点俗套。但是影片本身的品质还不错，加上影片是一部30年代的电影，也不必过分苛求，还是值得一看的。保罗穆尼在本片中的表演肯定不是其最佳表演，但是这种光伟正的角色拿来冲奖确实非常适合，况且其在影片中的扮相真的很像巴斯德本人，而且他的表演完成度也很高，拿奖说得过去。 (展开)
0 有用 Nightwing 看过 2021-06-12 14:09:05
这世界只要还有一豪人性，真相就会笑到最后。Not everybody gets you, and that is your power.
0 有用 按时对话法 看过 2021-08-18 14:00:32
3.5/5; Criterion Channel - Paul Muni: An Actor among Stars; indeed, indeed!
0 有用 littleBea 看过 2023-12-06 11:49:20 美国
较早的那一代有声片巨星里， Paul Muni是当年在演技方面被神化得最厉害的，也是如今看来表演最过火、最不适合大银幕的。他的表情在特写里显得过分夸张，朗诵式的念白直接拖慢成片节奏，早期的两部代表作Scarface和I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang因为本身故事冲突强、角色也没完美光环让他拼命用力、又有好导演把控，他表演上的问题会被适度掩盖；等到了歌颂式的人物传记片... 较早的那一代有声片巨星里， Paul Muni是当年在演技方面被神化得最厉害的，也是如今看来表演最过火、最不适合大银幕的。他的表情在特写里显得过分夸张，朗诵式的念白直接拖慢成片节奏，早期的两部代表作Scarface和I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang因为本身故事冲突强、角色也没完美光环让他拼命用力、又有好导演把控，他表演上的问题会被适度掩盖；等到了歌颂式的人物传记片，再摊上William Dieterle这样叙事也不大讲效率的导演，从角色本身的塑造到影片整体（当然这二者本来也不可分割），呈现出来的效果简直是灾难。 (展开)
1 有用 秦诺诺 看过 2016-10-26 21:19:08
3.5星，作为一部传记片显得有点单薄，最大的篇幅给了巴斯德发明狂犬病疫苗的故事。很多狂人想毁灭人类而更多的伟人给人类带来了福祉，巴斯德无疑是影响人类历史进程的重要人物之一。PS穆尼因这电影拿到影帝多少占了角色的光但是穆尼绝对是华纳“匪徒”中可塑性最强演技最好的一位。