(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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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!