(no subject)
May. 16th, 2004 11:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
froodleWatched 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.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 07:42 pm (UTC)he's furry and not. just. not, ok.
and if you dont agree with me then i start talking bad, oki?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 08:17 pm (UTC)Seriously though, I'm doing you a favour. Once you start to talk like the foul Ubongbeast, it's all over.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 08:20 pm (UTC)...admit what?
even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:22 pm (UTC)apart from the fact that you are actually a filthy het.
that my icon is prettier than yours.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:25 pm (UTC)You = Robowatson. So there.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:28 pm (UTC)Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:36 pm (UTC)*shudders*
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:39 pm (UTC)*dies at sound of own voice and is dead*
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:40 pm (UTC)They should make an episode where Holmes discovers that cocaine is no longer legally available in the 22nd century. 'Cause brat!Holmes amuses me.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:41 pm (UTC)include that in the 21st book.
timetravel. very quickly though
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:43 pm (UTC)And Holmes can sue Pullings for identity-theft and hat-mockery leading to emotional trauma.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:45 pm (UTC)and YES
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:46 pm (UTC)Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:48 pm (UTC)the cutlass!
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:50 pm (UTC)Poor, poor Tom.
*laughs up her sleeve*
And Holmes would be all like, well, I'm taking my hat back, but you can keep the cocaine addiction. And Tom will be like, Goddamn it!
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:51 pm (UTC)mmmm cocaine
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:52 pm (UTC)Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:54 pm (UTC)like fire?
or like hot?
why is it all the great ones have such addictions?
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:55 pm (UTC)Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:56 pm (UTC)does that make me smart?
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 08:58 pm (UTC)Being smart means you have addictions.
Having addictions just means you're a dumbass.
Therefore, you = dumbass.
Ha.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:00 pm (UTC)i hat you.
*is smart*
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:01 pm (UTC)So there.
Anyway, it's Froodlogic. Your tiny non-Froodlish mind could never understand it.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:03 pm (UTC)unlike hexian logic which the world runs on
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:04 pm (UTC)Hexian logic = the reason behind Reality TV.
I spit on you.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:07 pm (UTC)even though im perfect and cant do anythign wrong but he.. um... fell! from my service and made all the bad things in the world happen.
i am actually perfect otherwise
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:08 pm (UTC)Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:14 pm (UTC)damnit. worship me or i will SO blast you through the floor, straight to hell.
where my fallen helper will torture you.
not that im not completely
damnit. worship me or i will SO blast you through the floor, straight to hell.
where my fallen helper will torture you.
not that im not completely <A href"www.dictionary.reference.com/search?q=benevolent">benevolent</A> or anything
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:15 pm (UTC)*smirks*
Haha, your fans are Christians! They wake you up early on Sundays! They knock on people's doors and give them shitty annoying leaflets and magazines.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:18 pm (UTC)also. i contradict myself and provide an easy means of discrimination.
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:20 pm (UTC)"God doesn't like rape. Rape's pretty mean, you know. You shouldn't do it."
becomes
"Gasp! God hates gays! Let's burn them, lest their limp wrists and lispy voices threaten our masculinity! Then we'll rape them; that'll show them that our God doesn't love them!"
Re: even all negative
Date: 2004-05-21 09:22 pm (UTC)yes. my followers. Twist my already stupid words for your own purposes!