🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
mission impossible ghost protocol was surprisingly good, actually had a brilliant balance of action, story, comedy and what not. having only seen parts of the other 3 movies and heard that they're OK for action and not much else, I wasn't expecting overly much but was very pleasantly surprised; although Josh Holloway, one of my favourite actors from Lost, did have a bit of a disappointing appearance as Hanaway... at first
Thank you very much and spoiler tags are for Snape kills Dumbledore.
Good thing I hate Tom Cruise anyway, so I won't see it.
Right, let's get on with it. Winter holidays equals bunch of films on TV and not much city life, this might become long.
Conan the Barbarian. It's not Schwarzenegger physically, and new guy speaks just as well, or bad, rather. Not impressed there, but I'm willing to accept Jason Momoa as Conan if Schwarzenegger's films are disregarded. All in all pretty shitty, really. Ron Perlman, as essential addition, and Rachel Nichols do put it off as more enjoyable than the old films, though. Rose McGowan pulls that advantage down quite a bit, unfortunately, albeit she may share the blame with the makeup artist. Utterly tasteless. I guess that's intentional, but it's still disgusting. Mmyeah.
Uh, a couple insignificant films in between here, so insignificant I can't remember them at all. Moving on to the Incredible Hulk. It was on TV, and, well, Edward Norton is fun. Liv Tyler is a pleasant addition. If only the hulk part wasn't there, this could be the basis for something decent. I'll just out it once and for all that I really don't like superhero characters. None of them, really. I cope well with werewolves and vampires, all that shit, but Marvel and DC? Nay, never appealed to me. So my opinion on the Hulk is as biased as it could be, I guess. Actors generally do a good job, though, and the CG ain't too bad even though it's cheesy.
Let's see, um, probably another few films I don't recall seeing as I spent ten days at TRD's place. Anyway, back at Dad's theatre we first saw, hmm, X-Men: First Class. I think that was it. Yeah, I obviously didn't like it all that much. Think I had seen it before too. Might even have given it a bad review here? The only good scene is the one with Wolverine. Possibly the one when you'll know who fights you'll realise who towards the end and nice stuff happens to a coin. Slightly enjoyable. Oh, and I certainly didn't mind that creative, *ahem*, CIA agent's personal assets. So in that sense, it's actually more worthwhile than the previously mentioned Incredible Hulk. But only slightly. The CG is better, too, as is to be expected.
I think I already lost track of the order so I'll just go on from memory. Let's begin with The Book of Eli. Yeah, had seen it before. Equally impressive this time around. I like post-apocalyptic settings. A lot. Denzel Washington is a great actor, always will be, and Gary Oldman is as well. Mila Kunis, though I'd never heard of her before, seems to do her role well, too. That's all three main actors doing a good job. Script is decent, in my opinion. As much as it's a religious film of sort, it doesn't really pick any side, it simplifies everything into one phrase, and acknowledges the past. Though not a probably scenario, I think it's plausible. I'm satisfied.
Ah, yes, Basic. Great film with brilliant character. The intricate web of deceitful stories is knit tightly together, everything equally plausible at first glance. Admittedly, some twists are predictable, but far from all of them, only enough to give you the temporary impression of being ahead. Shortly after it'll batter you to the ground telling you how easily deceived you are before giving you another glimmer of hope. Can you crack the case before Osborne? I think it's possible, and that's what makes it all the more successful. The more likely scenario, though, is that the film wins, but rest assured, it won't run away. You'll always be able to follow in it's tracks, it doesn't confuse you, it enlightens you. It goes out in a surprisingly and, oddly, satisfying finale, though a bit far-fetched I think it really put the icing on the cake. One of the better crime films out there, certainly worth watching. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson and Connie Nielsen perform flawlessly.
Blitz, yeah, I saw it again. It was better this time around. Still as predictable and straight-forward, though. I like this slightly more Dirty Harry-esque Statham figure better than his usual unlawful good hero of the day character. Though it still doesn't beat the Snatch/Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels guy. Blitz offers just enough to be worth the watch.
Heh, then I saw The Warrior's Way which was pretty disappointing. Or, rather, I didn't know what I was in for and I quickly found out it wasn't what I had hoped. It so happens that Kate Bosworth annoys the crap out of me everywhere she shows up, which didn't exactly help the mood. Geoffrey Rush pulls off a rather decent Barbossa, I mean drunkard, though, and Tony Cox is fun. Not going to recommend it, unless you're into not-serious-at-all "action-comedy" (is it really?) like Sucker Punch and Bitch Slap. Just substitute the eye-friendly lasses for an ear-, eye- and mind-bleeding one. This might be a far-fetch and an overkill, but I'd like to compare it to replacing Russell Crowe's Maximus with Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura, and then remove all the other characters and make the Gladiator a stand-up show with CG battle scenes running in the background. Let's just say my dice broke when trying to rate this one.
Also watched Roman Polanski's Ghost Writer. Truthfully, writing anything more than what I already have is not necessary. As you would guess, the film is ace. I like Polanski and I like this film. I also happen to like Pierce Brosnan and Ewan McGregor. It deserves all the awards it received, and you deserve to see it.
Faster didn't peak my interest, what I could discern from the cover description and the actor list didn't impress. However, as it already resided on the shelf, I figured I might as well avoid missing out. Covers seldom deceive me, and although I'm inclined to say I was right it was far from as bad as I anticipated. Starts off horribly and picks up fairly well. Billy Bob Thornton pretty much saves it as far as acting go. Maggie Grace is a welcome addition. Dwayne Johnson does a believable character, but there's nothing interesting about it - it's a stereotype thug with vengeance. The Killer is your typical super-slick assassin with an added twist of perfectionist artistry and a brewing romantic. I'm thinking French assassin. Carla Gugino is unimpressive. There's a sense of mystery there, and it takes on a somewhat surprising finish. Personally, I think the ending ruined it, because it stripped each and every involved character off their character. Mediocre is my verdict - mainly because it's a salad of different kinds of films, each ingredient battling to be the main dish, and none win.
The Rite is great. It's Anthony Hopkins. It's the Exorcism with a new perspective, it's meaningful half-horror, half-documentary, half-mystery. They couldn't have let anyone else than good ol' Hannibal Lecter do that role. I'd say the film falls into the same category as The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. Though a little less focus on mystery solving and a little more focus on making something easily dismissed slightly less easy to dismiss. I guess. It's not really a religious film even though it appears to be. Maybe. I'm not really sure, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Certainly one of Anthony Hopkins' better roles and much needed now after Thor and The Wolfman being fairly flat compared to his skill.
Batman is probably the single most ridiculous superhero out there. His presence ruins the whole film, ironically.
That is my opinion and it has always been. I read Donald Duck & Co when I was a kid, and then I moved on to Conan and Red Sonja. I guess the people who like Batman actually read the comics as children.
Batman is probably the single most ridiculous superhero out there. His presence ruins the whole film, ironically.
That is my opinion and it has always been. I read Donald Duck & Co when I was a kid, and then I moved on to Conan and Red Sonja. I guess the people who like Batman actually read the comics as children.
Nop. Loved that movie, never read a batman comic in my whole life. Only comics I ever read were the Simpsons (and maybe MAD magazine?). IMO Batman's probably one of the most believable superheroes.
Just watched the new Nightmare on Elm St film. Not very scary, poor story, but effects and gore were nice.
I would've liked Thor and Odin as superheroes if they could base it on Norse mythology, and not American cartoons based on Norse mythology. Oh, and it would be a great boost if they could get the locations right.
Recently Watched - World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles
Set on a modern day sci-fi setting, this movie offers the fan-favorite alien invasion as human military forces struggle to repel the uber invader race. Unlike from other alien movies, the invaders are depicted like metal suited androids armed with rifle from teeth to toe, as I watched this movie, the alien design is quite forgettable and uninteresting, the entire film doesn't tell really much about them. While its a generic film, I enjoyed most of the time watching this, fast paced action is what really everyone wants. There isn't really special about this film rather being too unoriginal and well, like I said generic from the aliens, characters and the entire plot. But this is something for someone who would enjoy if one is looking for an action packed film.
I would've liked Thor and Odin as superheroes if they could base it on Norse mythology, and not American cartoons based on Norse mythology. Oh, and it would be a great boost if they could get the locations right.
But if it ain't a cartoon with a ridiculous outfit, it ain't a superhero.
If Batman was, in fact, an ordinary man and not a furry with too much money, he might've been interesting. It's the whole bat thing that is ruining it. Just like the whole super thing is ruining it for Superman, the spider thing is ruining it for Spiderman, and the list goes on.
If Batman was, in fact, an ordinary man and not a furry with too much money, he might've been interesting. It's the whole bat thing that is ruining it. Just like the whole super thing is ruining it for Superman, the spider thing is ruining it for Spiderman, and the list goes on.
But if it ain't a cartoon with a ridiculous outfit, it ain't a superhero.
If Batman was, in fact, an ordinary man and not a furry with too much money, he might've been interesting. It's the whole bat thing that is ruining it. Just like the whole super thing is ruining it for Superman, the spider thing is ruining it for Spiderman, and the list goes on.
...what's he meant to be? Man That Goes Into Town At Night And Beats People Up?
The bats are also symbolic of him overcoming his own evil/fears to protect those lesser than him or some stuff like that. TBH, his custome barely even looks bat-like in the Dark Knight/Batman Begins, which is great. In those two movies (and hopefully The Dark Knight Rises), the superhero-ness is played down well which is why they are such good movies IMO, but without the superhero part, well, it wouldn't be interesting. People don't read books/comics/watch movies about everyday things happening to everyday people because they can just live their lives for that. They're forms of escapism; these ones are absolutely great ones.
I just can't take people who dress like bats seriously. You don't need people in strange costumes for good escapism.
Also, a man that goes into town at night to beat people up isn't that everyday. Not to most people, at least (and one's everyday routines might be extraordinary to someone else, which can make for some pretty interesting movies as well).
But the last movie I've seen is Predators. I think it's incredibly average. Over the top music (a bit laughable at a couple of scenes), mostly meh acting (and Adrien Brody as a tough guy? I don't buy it), bad one-liners, zero suspense. But still, the effects are overall pretty well done, Laurence Fishburne has a fun role, and the scenery is nice. I give it a 5.5/10.
haha well I didn't mean that part as being everyday but he wouldn't be a very good enigma superhero you know? Since Bruce Wayne is rich as shit and isn't forced by anyone to beat the shit out of people all night long, it just adds a strong element of righteousness and all that to him
SUPERHEROES aren't supposed to be realistic. If you think Batman is bad, take a look at Superman, and pretty much every other superhero ever made.
Predators had its moments, well at least it is better than AVP, AVP Requiem, and Predator 2. I kinda like Adrian Brody, he's a stark contrast to old Arnie in the original. I hated Lawrence Fishburne, his character was crap and it just disrupted the plot.
I don't think I've seen Predator 2, but Predators is definitely better than those Versus movies.
I kinda like Adrian Brody, he's a stark contrast to old Arnie in the original. I hated Lawrence Fishburne, his character was crap and it just disrupted the plot.
I just finished watching City of Life and Death, a black and white chinese movie about the Nanking Massacre during the sino-japanese war (shortly before WW2).
And I must say, while the movie isn't exactly gory, it's very, very violent. And, aside from the beginning, most people dying are civilians. It does a very good job in showing the atrocities and the fear of the people (mainly those who knew what would happen), because you will, at least become angry and/or sad (there's about a dozen major tearjerker scenes).
Overall an amazing movie, with excellent acting and cinematography, though kinda slow-paced. 9/10 from me.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. I don't like superheroes. Batman still has the most ridiculous outfit I've seen on superheroes. I mean, Superman and Spiderman are just really colourful, and albeit that's ridiculous too, it doesn't beat those ears. Anyway, let's not dwell on this, I don't want to argue about it, I just wanted to have said my opinion.
Recently saw every episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. My god, what were those fools at FOX thinking when they decided to cancel the show?!
Recently saw every episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. My god, what were those fools at FOX thinking when they decided to cancel the show?!
Hahahaha if we are talking superheroes in the comics and stuff, I fully agree with you. they look absolutely ridiculous and i absolutely hate those ones. but the recent batman movies and, to a far lesser extent, the spiderman ones, have been a lot better.
in other news! I remembered a movie I watched, Isle of Man, a documentary movie about, well, the Isle of Man which is a motorbike race course. It was 3D and actually didn't suck ass because of that surprisingly enough; I don't know the first thing about motorbikes and have never been interested in racing sports or anything, but I actually really liked this one. It was extremely well done in the style of interviews/'live' action/racing action. Definitely recommend seeing this one tbh
Just watched Battle: LA it was classic for alien invasion movie the thing that I praised mostly is the action and the alien guys, they are very futuristic and not so smart like most alien movie that they know almost everything human do in the battlefield it makes the two species equal.
Finally seen Brokeback Mountain. It's a really amazing movie. Very well acted by Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, though I did have to get used to their accents a bit at first (not because they were bad). Incredible acting by the supporting cast as well. Music, camerawork, scenery, etc. are all amazing too. A 9/10 from me.
fladdermasken said:
Watched Antichrist, I'll be clenching my crotch for fucking decades. Damn it, Lars von Trier.
Last couple of minutes are emphasised way out of proportion. At least that's where my head goes when I skim through the scenes in retrospective, so I can only assume that's why people can't mention it without pulling a face. Sticks to you like a polio infection.
Truth be told, I like the lead-in quite a bit more than the end.
Apart from your English (which must be on purpose... god I hope).
-If you meant the rating 7/10 = average is the problem, blame it on the school systems
(70% is a C) (A B C D F, C is the middle as you can see)
-If you meant the rating is unfair, good for you, now please don't touch me. I hate blinded fan boys.
Figured it's time I bring folks the latest *cough* news. So I'll start the show with Pan's Labyrinth which was very different from what I had expected. The main character, Ofelia, is the daughter of a woman newly married (as far as I could gather) to, and bearing the child of, a brutal officer stationed at a front line of sorts against rebels. So the story about this general, Ofelia's mother and another character, Mercedes, are intertwined with a fantasy story that springs from Ofelia's huge interest in books. It's all very well acted, and there's hardly a pause in the thumping drama and thrilling adventure. Visually, the fantasy part of the story is very grotesque, slimy and generally unwelcoming. The undertones, however, are very childish and cute. All in all a well made film with a strong story. Not really my field of interest, though. Horror, drama and fantasy blended together is, in my humble opinion, an unfit mixture.
Moving on, I've been urged for a while to watch Hellboy and Hellboy II. As they're both Guillermo del Toro films, just like Pan's Labyrinth, I had mixed expectations. The first film largely disgusted me, the visuals were very much akin to those of Pan's Labyrinth and I did not enjoy the plot all that much either. Ron Perlman is fancy as a superhero-antihero-mutant flick, though, and the whole atmosphere of the film is very lighthearted compared to Pan's Labyrinth. I found the sequel, Hellboy II: The Golden Army much more interesting. There's a pretty elaborate fantasy world going on, making the world less real, thus Hellboy and Abe more plausible. The elves, although quite simply humans with straight, long, blond hair just like the stereotype - actually, on second thought I'm not sure if they were referred to as elves -, had a fancy role as the ruling species of a different dimension, one could say, where fantasy creatures were the animals (though more often than not capable of speech). This dimension, of course, opposed to the real dimension where humans rule. Disregard the title, though, as the Golden Army gets little exposure in the film, and although they serve as the drive they are not what should peak your interest. From an artist's standpoint, the film is very inspiring. Otherwise, it's not really that much to it. I'd say Hellboy is a head above your average superhero flick, though, because it's not trying to be real at all, quite the contrary.
Lastly, I saw Beowulf & Grendel the other day - the one with Gerard Butler as Beowulf. Of course, Denmark is still a mountainous fantasy landscape similar to the Shire, but instead of being cosy with little men, there are pre-viking warriors hungry for beer, women and violence. Then, coupled with fantasy, we have large, barbaric men - I can't say it ever clarified whether Grendel (or rather the father) was of a unique species or just a man cast out of society. There's also a witch who can see your death, oddly enough she's the only pretty woman in sight. Finally there's a hand emerging from the sea to scare the occasional boatman or fisher. It is revealed later on that there's more than an arm. Anyway, the story is presented in a much more plausible manner than it was in the Beowulf 3D film that I saw some years ago. The acting is adequate and it's fairly well made altogether. Naturally, Gerard Butler doesn't exactly sound Scandinavian nor look like one, but that's hardly the point here. Nothing is particularly Scandinavian about this thing in the first place. I felt it got rather boring at times, and I had a hard time understanding Beowulf's intentions. Generally a quite sad story with a not convincingly happy ending.
Lastly, I saw Beowulf & Grendel the other day - the one with Gerard Butler as Beowulf. Of course, Denmark is still a mountainous fantasy landscape similar to the Shire, but instead of being cosy with little men, there are pre-viking warriors hungry for beer, women and violence. Then, coupled with fantasy, we have large, barbaric men - I can't say it ever clarified whether Grendel (or rather the father) was of a unique species or just a man cast out of society. There's also a witch who can see your death, oddly enough she's the only pretty woman in sight. Finally there's a hand emerging from the sea to scare the occasional boatman or fisher. It is revealed later on that there's more than an arm. Anyway, the story is presented in a much more plausible manner than it was in the Beowulf 3D film that I saw some years ago. The acting is adequate and it's fairly well made altogether. Naturally, Gerard Butler doesn't exactly sound Scandinavian nor look like one, but that's hardly the point here. Nothing is particularly Scandinavian about this thing in the first place. I felt it got rather boring at times, and I had a hard time understanding Beowulf's intentions. Generally a quite sad story with a not convincingly happy ending.
Beowulf is supposed to be a Swedish though, he is in the book. So was the majourity of his men. Which makes the whole "It's not scandinavian" sound weird. Beowulf is one of those viking braggery tales about swimming across the oceans, beating up random beasts and having sex with hot ladies, then fighting dragons bare handed, although in the 3D adaption he fights it with a knife.. and the dragon is his son, I think.. and grendel is a deformed troll looking man instead of a huge gigantic swamp monster who devours soldiers and common people alike. But yeah. I didn't know they made another one though. Anyhow, those tales were written when screaming that you are the manliest son of the bitch on the planet mattered much. ;S
I KNOW RIGHT?!
I also like how they continue to depict Tønsberg (an old Norwegian town) with raging mountains around it. In reality, it's a lot more like that picture of Denmark. Of course, on a clear day you can probably see the mountains if you really want to, but in those recent superhero films (Captain America and Thor, for instance), Tønsberg is surrounded by mountains.
Beowulf is supposed to be a Swedish though, he is in the book. So was the majourity of his men. Which makes the whole "It's not scandinavian" sound weird. Beowulf is one of those viking braggery tales about swimming across the oceans, beating up random beasts and having sex with hot ladies, then fighting dragons bare handed, although in the 3D adaption he fights it with a knife.. and the dragon is his son, I think.. and grendel is a deformed troll looking man instead of a huge gigantic swamp monster who devours soldiers and common people alike. But yeah. I didn't know they made another one though. Anyhow, those tales were written when screaming that you are the manliest son of the bitch on the planet mattered much. ;S
Yeah, I know he's meant to be Swedish, but there's nothing in this film that suggests he is except for being a Geat, and looking a bit like an early viking. In that regard, the 3D Beowulf did a better job at making Beowulf a Scandinavian.
As far as son goes, I think the idea is that Grendel is his son in the 3D adaptation. In this one, he just rolls in the hay with the mother of Grendel's son.
EDIT: Just watched The King Maker (2005), admittedly because of John Rhys-Davies, otherwise known as Gimli. Yeah. Cindy Burbridge, or Sirinya Winsiri, is evidently no actress, but DAYUM she is fine. To be fair, none of the acting is good, and most of the time you can't tell if they're meant to be sarcastic and/or humorous, or if they're just not managing to take this thing seriously. I do, unfortunately, have more faith in the latter option and I must therefore admit that, yeah, it's a pretty shitty film. Now I said it. It's pretty much your average low-budget Asian film (not trying to make petty racist jokes here - films like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon are rare.) The speech is voiced over in studio, but the lipsync is not a problem, it just sounds awkward. There is no CGI or anything particularly polished. The blood is really unconvincing, which is sad for a film with so much of it. Gary Stretch has a pretty fancy character, though, and he does his job convincingly. I mean, as a boxer, you ought to know how to fight, and he sure looks as if he does. Just, too bad about the acting. Of course, Gimli isn't disappointing, but that's because you can't mock the dwarf! (On a side note, his character is probably the tallest in the entire set, and it looks hilarious.) The plot is also pretty common for Asian films, I don't know if you guys have noticed, but kings and emperors in Asia are always evil, and their queens are even more sinister and spiteful. I'll refrain from saying anything more than that. Besides, I more or less just sat back and enjoyed the British accents and Miss Burbridge's pair of eyes. No, I mean it. The eyes.
Watched Ip Man 1 and 2 a day ago, both probably some of the best movies I've seen.. and the choreography was just perfection, easily in my top 5 favorite movies now
Watched Rohtenburg (Grimm Love) yesterday. The movie (based on real events) is about the cannibal Oliver Hartwin. He dreamed of eating a willing victim, and thanks to the internet he was able to find a volunteer (Simon Grombeck).
It's a really strange movie. Not as gross as you might think (not nearly as bloody as movies like Martyrs or Ichi the Killer), but focusing more on the relationship between the two. I don't think it's that good (a 5/10 or so), but if you're interested in the subject, it's worth checking out.
Heh, so true. I never really though about it, but off the top of my head, I can't name any Asian movies with ''good'' kings or lords, no matter the quality of the movies (one of the more recent examples being 13 Assassins, which by the way is amazing).
It's a really strange movie. Not as gross as you might think (not nearly as bloody as movies like Martyrs or Ichi the Killer), but focusing more on the relationship between the two. I don't think it's that good (a 5/10 or so), but if you're interested in the subject, it's worth checking out.
Martyrs, holy crap, Martyrs. That must be one the most gruesome movies ever made that do not include teenagers as main characters. The first half of the film was ok, though, but after those "tests" it became... Eh, I have no words for that.
Martyrs, holy crap, Martyrs. That must be one the most gruesome movies ever made that do not include teenagers as main characters. The first half of the film was ok, though, but after those "tests" it became... Eh, I have no words for that.
And what made it worse is that you actually care about the main characters (or at least I did). That's the main problem with the Saw sequels; you don't care about any of the characters (or you find them so annoying you just want them to die...).
Also, there will be an American remake of Martyrs. It'll probably be PG 13.
Okey, I guess it's about time I say something about films I've seen this weekend.
The first film I saw was Elite Killers, with Jason Statham, Robert De Niro and Yvonne Strahovski (Miranda in ME2). It's an awesome action movie which is actually based on real events (DAYUM). Jason Statham is, as your probably guessed, an awesome killer, and he's taking on the British Special Forces. You should see it.
After that I saw The Experiment, another movie based on real events (DAFUQ IS THIS). It's about a secret psychological experiment conducted in the US in the 70's. To not spoil too much, I'll just point out that the people behind it got arrested for manslaughter. It's another movie you should see.
Saw Quantum of Solace for the second or third time the other day. For some reason I remembered it as pretty shitty, but it ain't really that bad, the issue is that it's a follow-up, which is unusual for James Bond. And, of course, the two latest films are lower budget than what they had before. Anyway, seeing it again I can't really say it's bad, not at all. We've all seen it, though, let's move on. Looking forward to the next film, by the way.
Then I watched Unknown last night. Another film I've seen before, but I had forgotten the twists in the end. Besides, knowing the premise, it's easier to follow the story a little closer and it really plays out fairly well. Anyway, the ending has a cool concept, I mean, it's not new, but it gives you the depth of the film, it's just too bad it all flashes by so quickly you don't really get to pick it up. If you haven't seen it, you should, it is a pretty good film, it's just a little cramped together in the end when all the pieces fall into place.
Watched The Water Horse. A bit cliché, but well made. And the ending is like a copy of Free Willy's ending (though I don't know if Free Willy is that original itself). A fun movie overall.
Yeah, they are about the exact same subject (the American movie is a remake of the German one). Haven't seen the remake yet, but I don't expect it to be better than the original.
Watched Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy a while back. I.. kind of liked it, but it was just WAY too confusing for me. I count myself as a pretty good movie watcher and don't usually get puzzled too much by plot and stuff, but in this, I didn't even know that one character was dead that apparently died in the first 10 minutes. I found it just way too messy, flashbacks of varying times, of varying perspectives, all that kinda stuff. Not quite my cup of tea.
Also saw Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows recently, quite thoroughly enjoyed it because this movie did get Holmes a tad closer to the true character of the original and many of the plot elements were actually taken quite well from the original stories. Also, Moriarty was brilliantly acted by Jared Harris, who also does one of my absolute favourite villains, David Robert Jones on Fringe, so I quite liked it in that way. There were parts that could have been done a bit better and the plot was a bit rushed in some regards, but overall, I quite liked this movie.
Which brings me then onto another review of another Sherlock Holmes adaption - Sherlock, the TV Movie series. And that is, I'll easily say, by far the best Sherlock Holmes adaption I've ever heard of or seen. It's converted into modern times, Watson having been in Afghanistan conflicts recently, but it carries all the extremities of character found in Sherlock Holmes to a very precise and perfect point. If you haven't seen it, I absolutely recommend you watching it immediately.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
