Last Movie you Watched?

1696697699701702908

Comments

  • Posts: 684
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Yes, she was good (though I'm not convinced she was better than Lesley Manville in Phantom Thread or Laurie Metcalf in Lady Bird).
    Yes, definitely. Those two performances stand out more.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Digitalia
    Posts: 40,553
    MAN OF STEEL is the best Superman movie, although I haven t seen SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I actually liked Man of Steel, too. I wouldn't go far as saying it's the best there is, but it's nowhere near as bad as people made it out to be. Building destruction? City in chaos? It seems people have not seen the MCU films.
  • Posts: 4,625
    Number five in my watching of Hayao Miyazaki's movie : Kiki's Delivery Service. Beautiful in all respects.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,132
    MAN OF STEEL is the best Superman movie, although I haven t seen SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN.

    I've sadly only seen Man of Steel and that one with Kevin Spacey - somehow loved the former. Caught it in theaters, went in knowing nothing and was thoroughly enjoying it throughout.
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    Posts: 543
    Man of Steel (like Batman V Superman) is so underrated. One of my favorite parts, besides the first flight, is near the end when Perry White is trying to get Jenny out of the rubble. Those World Engines were on both sides of the globe shooting that gravity beam; on one end, the Daily Planet bunch are in imminent danger, and on the other end, the worst possible thing could have happened: Superman got caught in the beam, with unimaginable force pushing down on him. Perry looks back at the damage getting closer, and back at Jenny, and they KNOW they're about to die. Then at the last second, Superman pushes back against the force-- and using all his strength flies up and destroys the World Engine, saving everyone. That scene, coupled with the music is fantastic!! Superman is about HOPE

    Thank you for posting the clip. I had forgotten about this scene, but I can see what you're saying, and it's really well done. Almost brought a tear to my eye. I think MOS has a lot of good scenes: you mentioned the flight, his conversations with Jonathan/Jor-El, the scenes when he's young, just to name a few. As for BvS, I haven't really watched it since theaters, and I watched I think 1/3 of the ultimate cut. I remember being disappointment by it, and maybe that's why reluctant to watch it again.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Éric Serra & Bill Conti!
    Posts: 5,358
    Well I really liked BvS too, not so much MoS though. I feel the latter was a bit overblown and I really disliked the finale with all the robots and spacecrafts.
    I’d actually prefer Superman Returns over MoS, but not over BvS.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,329
    All The Money in the World (2017)

    Another 'true story' that takes liberties with the actual facts. Good performances all round, but this could have done with a more gritty 70's look instead of the lush photography Ridley Scott gives us. His directing also means this has all the subtlety of a punch in the gob.

    Not impressed.
  • Posts: 2,105
    Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
    Dune
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 7,629
    Ghostbusters (2016) - far more enjoyable as I expected it to be and I guess the best we are going to get in this franchise, Chris Hemsworth was a delight.

    Cross - the third movie about Alex Cross that lacked the skill of Morgan Freeman and was rejuvenated to Tyler Perry. This movie was just lacking a decent story and was just not that much fun as the first two, this one felt dumned down.
  • Posts: 4,625
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ghostbusters (2016) - far more enjoyable as I expected it to be and I guess the best we are going to get in this franchise, Chris Hemsworth was a delight.

    Agreed on that. Frankly, I can't understand why that movie got the harsh treatment it got. IMHO, it's a very fun movie, and I'll revisit it soon.

    As for me, the last movie I saw (on Blu-Ray) was Pacific Rim. Kaiju and giant robots, what's not to like ? Plus, it was really well filmed, even if the script wasn't really deep. But who cares : kaiju Vs. Robots, or what if MechaGodzilla won ? Who needs more, right ?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    All The Money in the World (2017)

    Another 'true story' that takes liberties with the actual facts. Good performances all round, but this could have done with a more gritty 70's look instead of the lush photography Ridley Scott gives us. His directing also means this has all the subtlety of a punch in the gob.

    Not impressed.
    I quite liked the film, but I'll admit that my enthusiasm and interest was more motivated by the cinematography than the direction, which left me a little cold. Coincidentally, this story will soon be covered again in an FX Tv series entitled Trust starring Donald Sutherland and Hillary Swank, with the first three episodes directed by none other than Danny Boyle himself.
    ---

    Iron Man 3 (2013)
    I was in the mood for some Marvel. I've always liked this film, perhaps much more than most viewers. I think it's a return to form imho, after the somewhat wayward second installment. Directed by Shane Black, this one is far more low key and character focused. RDJ's Tony Stark suffers from a sort of PTSD after the events of Avengers. He is forced to confront self created demons while dealing with two adversaries in the form of Ben Kingsley's terrorist (Mandarin) and Guy Pearce's corporate Aldrich Killian, who has invented a sort of regenerating substance for soldiers which he has weaponized. Rebecca Hall plays an old love interest of Tony's who returns to the scene. The best parts of this film for me are in a small town in Tennessee, where Stark hooks up with a fatherless precocious kid (Ty Simpkins) and does some sleuthing to determine who is behind the terrorist bombings before going after them in the usual Marvel'esque mayhem and explosion centric finale. The special effects work is top notch & Downey Jr. is a continued delight to watch in his signature role. I hope we get an Iron Man 4 down the road, although I realize it's doubtful.
  • Posts: 5,739
    bondjames wrote: »
    All The Money in the World (2017)

    Another 'true story' that takes liberties with the actual facts. Good performances all round, but this could have done with a more gritty 70's look instead of the lush photography Ridley Scott gives us. His directing also means this has all the subtlety of a punch in the gob.

    Not impressed.
    I quite liked the film, but I'll admit that my enthusiasm and interest was more motivated by the cinematography than the direction, which left me a little cold. Coincidentally, this story will soon be covered again in an FX Tv series entitled Trust starring Donald Sutherland and Hillary Swank, with the first three episodes directed by none other than Danny Boyle himself.
    ---

    Iron Man 3 (2013)
    I was in the mood for some Marvel. I've always liked this film, perhaps much more than most viewers. I think it's a return to form imho, after the somewhat wayward second installment. Directed by Shane Black, this one is far more low key and character focused. RDJ's Tony Stark suffers from a sort of PTSD after the events of Avengers. He is forced to confront self created demons while dealing with two adversaries in the form of Ben Kingsley's terrorist (Mandarin) and Guy Pearce's corporate Aldrich Killian, who has invented a sort of regenerating substance for soldiers which he has weaponized. Rebecca Hall plays an old love interest of Tony's who returns to the scene. The best parts of this film for me are in a small town in Tennessee, where Stark hooks up with a fatherless precocious kid (Ty Simpkins) and does some sleuthing to determine who is behind the terrorist bombings before going after them in the usual Marvel'esque mayhem and explosion centric finale. The special effects work is top notch & Downey Jr. is a continued delight to watch in his signature role. I hope we get an Iron Man 4 down the road, although I realize it's doubtful.

    I put this on another thread, but here's the deadline review of Boyle's TRUST:

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/trust-review-fx-getty-kidnapping-danny-boyle-donald-sutherland-1202352773/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    I put this on another thread, but here's the deadline review of Boyle's TRUST:

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/trust-review-fx-getty-kidnapping-danny-boyle-donald-sutherland-1202352773/
    Thanks. Looking forward to this.
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    Posts: 543
    MARVEL CINEMATIC RETROSPECTIVE

    Avengers_Age_of_Ultron_poster.jpg

    A really fun movie, but not as good as the previous team-up, Avengers. It had some cool actions pieces, the party scene had some nice moments, the collab between Cap and Thor was cool, and liked the new additions in the Maximoff twins. However, I found the story confusing at times. It took me this third viewing to realized what Ultron was up to. For some reason, it wasn't clear the last two times I watched it. Also I was confused by how Ultron came to be: was he a created by Tony but influenced by the mind stone? Did he come from the mind stone? Also, why did Tony need the scepter? Where did Strucker get the scepter?. I kind of wish they would have flesh out more of HYDRA experiments in Winter Soldier aside from having a post-credit sequence. Another thing, I really wanted to like Ultron. When he crashes the party, he was really good, really menacing, but he just didn't carry that throughout the whole film. I didn't like that they tried to add some humor into him which I think didn't fit. Anyways, something out of the blue was Romanoff and Banner's relationship. Where did that come from? I thought the scene between them at the bar was cute, but after that it just seems, I don't know, cringy especially their scenes at the Barton house. Another thing out of the blue is Thor's vision. Again very confusing, didn't seem to add anything to this story or even Ragnarok which some people at the time thought it was referring to. It should have cut from the film, have Thor or someone figure out that the scepter was an infinity stone. This movie could have been better if it was more streamlined and not too confusing.

    Rankings:
    1. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
    2. Avengers
    3. Iron Man
    4. Guardians of the Galaxy
    5. Captain America: The First Avenger
    6. Avengers: Age of Ultron
    7. The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 3
    10. Black Panther
    11. Iron Man 2
    12. Thor: The Dark World
  • Posts: 5,739
    The guy's quite a visual risk-taker. Split screens and frenetic energy, I honestly have no idea what his Bond will look like.

    be interesting to see how you and @LeonardPine compare it to the Scott film-- same subject, but, as the DL review states, done very differently.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm sure I'll like it. The production values look really good in the trailers and Sutherland is always a treat to watch.

    It's a coincidence that in both cases Getty is played by a Canadian (with Plummer in the film version).
  • Posts: 5,739
    yep-- Sutherland is great (as is Plummer); Plummer was the quick re-cast they did: Scott had originally filmed a heavily made-up Kevin Spacey as JP Getty-- but then the sexual misconduct stories were revealed.

    Scott ordered re-shoots (costing a few million more), re-cast Plummer in the role, in which another controversy arose: Mark Wahlberg was paid quite a bit more than his co-star Michelle Williams, to come back for the re-shoots.

    Wahlberg reportedly donated this money to Time's Up:

    https://www.today.com/popculture/mark-wahlberg-donating-1-5-million-time-s-after-pay-t121192
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,232
    I'm beginning to like your ranking, @Artemis81! I'll continue to read your reviews. Curious to see where you're going to fit in the next few films. :)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Éric Serra & Bill Conti!
    Posts: 5,358
    People seem to really like Winter Soldier and the first Avengers, but I thought they were just ok. Those two films feel like one big setpiece to me. Civil War and Ragnarok on the other hand really impressed me. I’m curious where they will end up in your ranking.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I also may be in the minority but Winter Soldier is something I find overrated. Decent. Alright. But, not the masterpiece people are making it out to be. But, I do like the first Avengers. The one installment that entertains me completely is the first Iron Man, however. It never gets tiring for me, that one. Black Panther is also a film I hold as one of the greats in the MCU franchise.

    I also found Civil War very underwhelming. It's nothing like the comic book story arc, which was tense, edgy and had a story that paralleled the title, unlike the film. Vision, as a character, also annoys me the way Star-Lord does to some. Both of the Guardians of the Galaxy, while entertaining, are nowhere near as good as the acclaim they receive.

    To me, the holy trinity of MCU films has become Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and Black Panther. Then Marvel's The Avengers and then the rest.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Revelator wrote: »
    e8ad4ce6d778382fda1cb936c410e805.jpg

    Priklyucheniya Sherloka Kholmsa i doktora Vatsona: Sobaka Baskerviley (1981, Lenfilm)

    I had misgivings about the Russian version of the Hound of the Baskervilles. What if its supposed greatness was nationalistic hype from the Ruskies? What I initially saw felt terribly strange. How odd to see Sherlock and Watson speaking Russian! And though the filmmakers went to great trouble to get the period look right, the buildings, furnishings, locations, and clothing still looked very Russian.

    But by the end I was definitely impressed. The Russians have a reputation for reverent, lavish adaptations of classic literature, and this must be the longest (two and a half hours) and most faithful adaptation of the Hound ever made. It also has the biggest budget—to the shame of the British and Americans, who've cranked out so many cheap versions of the tale! I don’t know what godforsaken part of Russia stood in for the moor, but it was just as desolate and eerie. And what a pleasure to see a version of the Hound with extensive outdoors photography and outdoor nighttime scenes! These are supremely important in sustaining the mood. The hound emerges from genuine darkness; strategically painted, it looks a floating skull. Very effective.

    Vasily Livanov plays Sherlock Holmes. I'm still unsure about him: he looks more like an accountant than a detective and croaks his lines, but he expertly exudes Holmes’s quality of slow-burning stillness and projects great intelligence (with a hint of amused cynicism). As for Vitaly Solomin’s Dr. Watson, he is without doubt among the best-ever versions of the character and could have stepped out of Sidney Paget’s illustrations. Solomin has occasional sly glint in his eye—he could just as easily play a master detective as hid sidekick, which gives his Watson authority and charisma. The other roles are similarly well cast. The Russians have some fun with Henry Baskerville (Nikita Mikhalkov) and turn him into a boisterous cowboy, though his emotional volubility is more Cossack than Texan. He provides gentle comic relief and makes the part more memorable than usual.

    So, congratulations to the Russians for creating one of the best adaptations of Doyle's novel. The worst I can say is that it doesn't have the vitality of the 1939 film and is a bit slow in comparison. Director Igor Maslennikov occasionally wrings stunning images from the material (such as the man on the Tor, and perhaps the spookiest hound to appear onscreen) but he’s not the most dynamic or pacey director. Neverthless, this handsome, heavy film is gauntlet thrown down to Homes's homeland—if Russia can put this much care and craft into the story, why can’t Britain?

    Sherlock%20Holmes%20Ian%20Richardson.jpg

    The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983, Mapleton Films)

    The great Ian Richardson was an inspired choice for Holmes. Anyone who’s watched the original House of Cards has thrilled to the silvery, spidery coolness of this charismatic actor. His Francis Urquhart was capable of pissing ice water, just as Holmes should be. So it’s disappointing that Richardson’s Sherlock is avuncular and super-smiley, as if the actor was afraid of hinting at the character's darkness. Thankfully there are moments when the happy-face mask slips and one glimpses the sort of magnificent, masterful Holmes that Richardson could have been with more sensitive direction.

    Alas, Donald Churchill’s Watson is a harrumphing, bad-tempered throwback to Nigel Bruce. Unlike Bruce, Churchill also comes across as an a**hole. There’s no sense of great friendship or even the slightest camaraderie between him and Richardson's Holmes. The supporting cast is mouth-watering (Nicholas Clay, Brian Blessed, Eleanor Bron, Connie Booth, Denholm Elliott) but gives flat performances.

    Douglas Hickox’s direction is initially over-flashy but settles down. Ronnie Taylor cinematography's is at feature film level. Much of the production was filmed on location in Devonshire and the moor scenery is stunning. But like all the non-Russian versions of the story, the climactic scenes with the hound are filmed on a sound-stage with the fog machine working overtime. Luckily the set is good, second only to the 1939 film’s. The hound is a large and imposing black dog, often shown in silhouette with an unsettling white glow in its eyes. The film makes a small mistake in fully revealing the creature before the climax, but the revelation is brief enough for the film to recover.

    The script was written by someone who didn’t trust the effectiveness of the original story. A new and very obvious red herring has been introduced, several scenes have been reshuffled, and the script strains to keep the murderer’s identity a secret for too long. Watson’s time as the sole investigator is curtailed—perhaps for the best since he’s so dim in this version, but Holmes’s reappearance no longer comes as a delight. Some scripting decisions make no sense—Lestrade is introduced early on (Watson is uncharacteristically rude to him) yet doesn’t appear at the finale, his only scene in the book.

    This is a production with a large enough budget to sustain lavish period settings, though they have the gaudy look that Americans tend to give Victorian England. But this adaptation is caught midway between Rathbone version (it even repeats Holmes’ gypsy disguise) and the Hammer film. So we get an old-fashioned Holmes and Watson alongside vulgarly rendered sex and violence (Sir Hugo takes forever to rape and kill the peasant girl). The basic ingredients to this Hound are good, but the result feels derivative. For a version that ignores earlier films and goes back to Doyle, turn to the following adaptation...

    hqdefault.jpg

    The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988, ITV Granada)

    The Granada Sherlock Holmes series starred arguably the best Holmes and Watson of all. Its 1988 version of the Hound should have been the best as well, but it turned out to be a dispiriting disappointment. The series had overspent on earlier episodes and to save money decided to shoot a two hour film instead of two one-hour entries. The tightened budget meant no 17th century flashback to Sir Hugo, no London street chase, no filming in Dartmouth, and no outdoors filming at night. A deadly set of deprivations.

    As Holmes Jeremy Brett was eternally brilliant—his line readings show an intense and sensitive study and internalization of Doyle. He alone seems to have turned Sherlock into a convincing human being, rather than a smug human computer. But at the time of filming he was afflicted by ill health (water retention caused by medication for his manic depression). His opening scenes are crisply performed, but his later scenes have less electricity. Edward Hardwicke’s Watson is the only one who seems to have an inner life; there is no doubt about his skill and competence. Kristoffer Tabori is an appealing Sir Henry Baskerville (he looks and sounds like Robbie Robertson) but doesn’t fit the character's strapping westerner image.

    Like all the entries in Granada’s Holmes series, this Hound has convincing period detail, more convincing than any other version. This was achieved despite the reduced budget. Location shooting was in Yorkshire instead of Dartmoor; what’s onscreen is a reasonable substitute, but the climactic scenes on the moor were filmed indoors, on a set with a fog machine, like every damn production except the Russian one. The set looks smaller and crummier than all of the other versions (aside from the 1968 Hound), and barely has a nighttime feel. The direction, staging, and editing in these scenes is clumsy and borderline incoherent. Unforgivably, the hound is repeatedly shown multiple times before the climax, and what we see is a glowing Great Dane (accompanied by a fake head that “attacks” Sir Henry in close-up) with dodgy glow-in-the-dark effects.

    Away from the moor, the editing and direction are competent but ridiculously slow and plodding. It takes forever for characters to get on and off trains, or move through Baskerville Hall, or enter and exit carriages. The lethargic pacing kills the thrills and the unimaginative direction throws away all the great, dramatic moments of the story—the death of Sir Charles, the man on the tor, Holmes’s reappearance, the unveiling of the Hound, etc. The script, by T.R. Bowen, proficiently compresses and retains much of the original. It shows that Doyle's original structure works on film, or at least would work in a film with greater atmosphere and mood. Granada's Hound is not at all bad--it simply looks mediocre in light of the series's track record.

    ***

    And thus ends my journey though six versions of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I would have liked to review the silent films of the story, but none are available. I'd have loved to see the 1921 version starring Eille Norwood, whose star was praised by none other than Conan Doyle ("On seeing him in The Hound of the Baskervilles I thought I had never seen anything more masterly"). Almost as enticing is the 1929 Der Hund von Baskerville, a late silent version from Germany. Fortunately it will screen at this year's San Francisco Silent Film Festival.

    Other versions of the Hound, I skipped for time (Tom Baker's) or because I had no desire to watch them again (like Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's--how could such funny men have made such an unfunny film?) or because I heard they weren't very good (Stewart Granger's). In any case, I have seen enough to give a verdict:

    The 1939 film with Basil Rathbone remains the best film of the book, while the award for most faithful and committed adaptation goes to the Russian TV version. Both are excellent, but it's still possible to make an even better adaptation of the book. But to do so five factors are required:

    * Not just a charismatic Holmes, but a charismatic Watson. Holmes is absent during much of the story, but this isn't a problem if the audience enjoys watching Watson.

    * A screenplay that sticks close to Doyle. His dramatic structure still works, and the story strikes a perfect balance between horror, detection, and drama.

    * A decent budget. The story does not work when done cheaply and deprived of convincing period feel and convincing settings.

    * Night scenes shot on location, or a vast soundstage that gives the illusion of realism. The minute you place the characters in a blatantly artificial setting, the hound becomes ineffective. The point of the beast is that of supernatural-looking creature [/i]erupting into reality[/i]. Having it appear on a transparently fake setting on is disastrous.

    * A genuinely scary and demonic hound. This requires imagination and creativity--you can't just throw a Great Dane in front of the camera. But if you find a suitably intimidating dog, just a bit of paint can go a long way, as in the Russian version.

    One stray observation before I end this mega-post: I noticed that all six adaptations left out Holmes’s joyous reaction at discovering the real identity of a certain corpse on the moor. Why?
    Thanks for this @Revelator, an enjoyable and interesting read.

    I've always thought with Holmes it basically boils down to Rathbone v Brett with the former rather hampered by Watson being written as an absolute buffoon in quite a lot of them (although I do love Nigel Bruce in the role). I struggle to get on board with these guys who just play the role once or twice (which is strange as I'm quite happy with Laz and Dalts).

    The Russian one an interesting case. I remember seeing a few of these on telly when I lived there (over 10 years ago now). Always struck me as a very decent crack at the stories and I think they are held in quite high regard over there. Of course I didn't speak Russian well enough to get the nuances but thankfully because I knew most of the stories I could follow. Would be interesting to see them all and with English subtitles.
  • Posts: 2,222
    Thanks for this @Revelator, an enjoyable and interesting read.
    I've always thought with Holmes it basically boils down to Rathbone v Brett with the former rather hampered by Watson being written as an absolute buffoon in quite a lot of them (although I do love Nigel Bruce in the role). I struggle to get on board with these guys who just play the role once or twice (which is strange as I'm quite happy with Laz and Dalts).
    The Russian one an interesting case. I remember seeing a few of these on telly when I lived there (over 10 years ago now). Always struck me as a very decent crack at the stories and I think they are held in quite high regard over there. Of course I didn't speak Russian well enough to get the nuances but thankfully because I knew most of the stories I could follow. Would be interesting to see them all and with English subtitles.

    I'm glad you enjoyed it. I agree that Rathbone vs. Brett is the ultimate match-up, since an actor needs more than one film to make the role his own, especially since Holmes is offscreen for much of the Hound.
    Brett's Hound, due to budget cuts and dull direction, was unable to match Rathbone's, but the rest of his appearances (including The Sign of Four, one of the very best Holmes films) more than compensate. I'm the middle of rewatching Brett's series on Blu-Ray, and the visual quality is several leaps above the DVD versions.
    The Russian series is very intriguing and I need to see more of it. In the UK Livanov's Hound has been released on an English-subtitled DVD. In the US there are various NTSC Russian DVDs that happen to have English subtitles, and my local library fortunately had one.
  • Posts: 8,502
    The A-team

    Such a Brilliant Film this is one of my All time favorite films. Between the acting the dialogue and the locations and just well everything. So many quotable lines. so much good work. LOVE LOVE LOVE this movie


    Films I have seen in 2018
    1. The A-team
    2. The Final Girls
    3. Taken
    4. Stand By Me
    5. Before Sunrise
    6. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
    7. Goonies
    8. Before Midnight
    9. Before Sunset


    Before series
    1. Before Sunrise
    2. Before Midnight
    3. Before Sunset

    Stephen King movies
    1. Stand By Me

    Corey Feldman movies
    1. Stand by me
    2. Teenage mutant ninja turtles
    3. Goonies


    Taken Series

    1. Taken

    Liam Neeson (sort of) retrospective series
    1. The A-team
    2. Taken


  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Revelator wrote: »
    Thanks for this @Revelator, an enjoyable and interesting read.
    I've always thought with Holmes it basically boils down to Rathbone v Brett with the former rather hampered by Watson being written as an absolute buffoon in quite a lot of them (although I do love Nigel Bruce in the role). I struggle to get on board with these guys who just play the role once or twice (which is strange as I'm quite happy with Laz and Dalts).
    The Russian one an interesting case. I remember seeing a few of these on telly when I lived there (over 10 years ago now). Always struck me as a very decent crack at the stories and I think they are held in quite high regard over there. Of course I didn't speak Russian well enough to get the nuances but thankfully because I knew most of the stories I could follow. Would be interesting to see them all and with English subtitles.

    I'm glad you enjoyed it. I agree that Rathbone vs. Brett is the ultimate match-up, since an actor needs more than one film to make the role his own, especially since Holmes is offscreen for much of the Hound.
    Brett's Hound, due to budget cuts and dull direction, was unable to match Rathbone's, but the rest of his appearances (including The Sign of Four, one of the very best Holmes films) more than compensate. I'm the middle of rewatching Brett's series on Blu-Ray, and the visual quality is several leaps above the DVD versions.
    The Russian series is very intriguing and I need to see more of it. In the UK Livanov's Hound has been released on an English-subtitled DVD. In the US there are various NTSC Russian DVDs that happen to have English subtitles, and my local library fortunately had one.

    There was another HoTB playing the other day on the tellybox, starring Richard Roxborough (or did I miss that in you review?) and then of course there is Sherlock series 2 episode The Hounds of Baskerville as well.
  • Posts: 19,339
    This :

    The-Ones-Below-featured-image-600x234.jpg

    An intriguing film with a great ending..there are some weird people out there and its amazing to think how lives can be wrecked in such a short time.

    Recommended.
  • Posts: 2,222
    There was another HoTB playing the other day on the tellybox, starring Richard Roxborough (or did I miss that in you review?) and then of course there is Sherlock series 2 episode The Hounds of Baskerville as well.

    No, you're correct, I didn't review the Roxborough version. Everything I read about it put me off. I plan on seeing the Sherlock version someday, but since it's very far from being a traditional adaptation I decided it wouldn't be fair to review it as one.

  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,625
    The Avengers was on the telly last night, so I decided to revisit it. Not the Marvel movie, but the Ralph Fiennes / Uma Thurman / Sean Connery version. And apart from two scenes, it's quite a good movie. Fiennes is the quintessential English Gentleman, Uma would have been a perfect Black Widow if the MCU had gotten its start at the time, and Sean Connery made a good villain. Plus, it had that grain of excentricity, that touch of madness that made the original series great : use of silly location and suits, Escherian architecture, secondary characters (Alice), etc. But as I said, there were those two scenes. The first one (Sir August on the verge of raping Mrs. Peel) was uncomfortable to watch. As for the second (Steed and Mrs. Peel kissing), that flew in the face of everything we know about the series. It was not a betrayal like the use of Jim Phelps in the first Mission : Impossible movie, far from it, but still... But apart from that, a good movie. Not great, but good.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2018 Posts: 15,534
    Ready Player One (2018)

    Fantastic film, very fun, very fast paced, extremely entertaining actions sequences - the 1st major one at around the 20 minutes mark is one huge car chase that features King Kong, the DeLorean, a Dinosaur and the motorcycle from 'Akira' - and the CGI world created whenever the film dives into the Oasis (the virtual world central to the plot) are are amazing to see. A killer soundtrack (Depeche Mode, A-Ha), a very cool James Bond reference when the N64 game 'Goldeneye 007' is mentioned, and of course some very charismatic performances from the lead cast - especially the 2 asian characters and Ben Mendelsohn (who is born to play very slimy yet terribly entertaining villains). I had a blast for the entire 2 hours and 20 minutes, and it'll most likely finish the year near the top of the most fun time I'll have in theaters. One of my favorite Spielberg's too, I'll have to see where it ranks once I rewatch it, but I think it'll be very high on my list.
  • Posts: 684
    Ready Player One (2018)

    Fantastic film, very fun, very fast paced, extremely entertaining actions sequences - the 1st major one at around the 20 minutes mark is one huge car chase that features King Kong, the DeLorean, a Dinosaur and the motorcycle from 'Akira' - and the CGI world created whenever the film dives into the Oasis (the virtual world central to the plot) are are amazing to see. A killer soundtrack (Depeche Mode, A-Ha), a very cool James Bond reference when the N64 game 'Goldeneye 007' is mentioned, and of course some very charismatic performances from the lead cast - especially the 2 asian characters and Ben Mendelsohn (who is born to play very slimy yet terribly entertaining villains). I had a blast for the entire 2 hours and 20 minutes, and it'll most likely finish the year near the top of the most fun time I'll have in theaters. One of my favorite Spielberg's too, I'll have to see where it ranks once I rewatch it, but I think it'll be very high on my list.
    This is encouraging to hear. It's been a while since a new one from him has been top tier for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.