![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Watched the Richard Roxburgh version of Hound of the Baskervilles this evening, despite Jonathan's dire warnings that doing so would cause my head to explode/give me cancer/result in millions of David Blaine clones.
It wasn't that bad, once I got passed the whole 'Dude, that's Dracula...' thing with Roxburgh. The deep shock came near the end of the film, with the sudden realisation that Ian Hart, who plays Watson, is Quirrel from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Which wasn't as disturbing as the Moriarty/Homer Simpson thing, but did have the effect of throwing the entire film off-kilter.
(Incidentally, have decided that if the ACD characters were characters in the Simpsons, Watson would totally be Marge. Unless it's the Nigel Bruce version of Watson, in which case, he'd be Milhouse.)
Also: Richard E. Grant. In another Holmes film. And somehow, not playing Sherlock. How does this keep happening?
The CGI on the Hound was bad. Really bad. Like, worse than Underworld.
Watson was very... unWatsony. In a non-Sherlock Holmes film, I would have adored his character, but here it was just odd. Very odd.
Other than that, mildly entertaining, and yay for homoerotic bathing scenes, which as we all know, the world needs more of - I'm looking at you, Lord of the Rings.
It wasn't that bad, once I got passed the whole 'Dude, that's Dracula...' thing with Roxburgh. The deep shock came near the end of the film, with the sudden realisation that Ian Hart, who plays Watson, is Quirrel from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Which wasn't as disturbing as the Moriarty/Homer Simpson thing, but did have the effect of throwing the entire film off-kilter.
(Incidentally, have decided that if the ACD characters were characters in the Simpsons, Watson would totally be Marge. Unless it's the Nigel Bruce version of Watson, in which case, he'd be Milhouse.)
Also: Richard E. Grant. In another Holmes film. And somehow, not playing Sherlock. How does this keep happening?
The CGI on the Hound was bad. Really bad. Like, worse than Underworld.
Watson was very... unWatsony. In a non-Sherlock Holmes film, I would have adored his character, but here it was just odd. Very odd.
Other than that, mildly entertaining, and yay for homoerotic bathing scenes, which as we all know, the world needs more of - I'm looking at you, Lord of the Rings.
*plays piano*
it was really, Really shitty.
also watson was too close to het-porn-star watson to be enjoyable (compared to holmes and that american fop anyway). its when directors flaunt their power over a character's sexality that pisses me off.
everybody knows they should just leave it slashy and adorable.
and chock full of richard e grant
no subject
And yes, yes and YES to your other three statements.
*smiles and revises*
as it's such a great neological adjective of combined verb modifiers
Re: *smiles and revises*
Also, ha, I get to watch Angel and you don't.
Re: *smiles and revises*
fuck.you.
and your stupid stamps.
Re: *smiles and revises*
My... my stamps!
Re: *smiles and revises*
yes. your stamps.
*lick*
Re: *smiles and revises*
So there.
Re: *smiles and revises*
which one is coming up?