Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    It's very, VERY difficult to understand from over here, too.
  2. 1 point
    Hi guys, Merry Christmas . I am a fan of Sherlock series obviously, but I must say I have been puzzled by inconsistency in Sherlock deducing process . I would say they are of two types : 1) very slow hypotheses switching . My example is the moment where S.H. get puzzled by the fact the lost luggage in " a study in pink" is in the neighbourhood. I get the fact that the taxi slow appearance in the game is somehow theatrical, but it bothered me in the sense that S.H looks quite not as smart and quick as expected at this moment. 2) inconsistent hypothesis . My example is the suggestion by S.H. in "The Hounds of Baskerville" that the poison could have been spilled into the cup of coffee. I do no see how Henri could have been drugged in this manner before . Have you other examples ( I have other , but I probably need to rewatch to remind ) , or are you disagreeing with my recriminations ? Caroline
  3. 1 point
    Solo: A Star Wars Story. Pretty much a waste of film.
  4. 1 point
    Nominal Benedict Cumberbatch mention: Last night I revisited from my collection The Other Boleyn Girl (2008) in which BC has a small supporting role as William Carey, the poor unfortunate slob who had his newlywed bride stolen by King Henry VIII when the King took a shine to her and thought she looked capable of producing an heir for England, despite the inconvenience of her being married to another man. 'She' is Mary Boleyn Carey (Scarlett Johannsson), younger sister of the infamous Anne. After Mary was confined to bed with a high-risk pregnancy, the King lost interest in her and turned his attentions to Anne. We all know how that worked out for her. When one is a man who is being cuckolded by his sovereign all the while being forced to witness it as a member of the King's privy chamber . . what can one do about it? Nothing except suffer silently unless one wants to be executed for treason. Everything belongs to the King, in the end, including all of his subjects' wives, if he fancies them. Benedict, on the cusp of international stardom but still 2 years out from Sherlock here does what he can with a nominal role, and looks suitably tortured while wearing feathered caps rather fetchingly. Also appearing as another courtier and childhood friend of the Boleyn girls is Eddie Redmayne. Little did he and BC know at the time that only 6 years later, they'd be battling head to head for the 2014 Oscar. (Win to Mr. Redmayne for his Stephen Hawking. The Academy goes for a wheelchair every single time.) This movie is sumptuously shot. It looks really awesome and the costumes by Sandy Powell (who also did Shakespeare in Love, among others) are sublime. Ms. Powell really excels at this period. Kristin Scott Thomas is Lady Boleyn and Mark Rylance is Sir Thomas Boleyn. David Morrissey plays the scheming uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who is determined to play Queenmaker and advance the fortunes of his family by putting a Boleyn girl in the orbit of Henry Tudor. The screenplay is Peter Morgan, the King of British royal historical dramas (The Queen; the current Netfix series The Crown). Given the excellence of his other work, I was surprised that Mr. Morgan devised such an ultimately limp, soapy and melodramatic take on this era and these people. Ms. Johannsson comes off the best in this twisted triad as the sweet, nurturing Mary, an obedient daughter and wife and a devoted sister, who is forced into a relationship with the King through the machinations of her rapacious uncle and equally greedy but weak-willed father in a time when women were the property of their male relatives by law. Mary did as she was ordered because she had to, not because she was a morally loose woman later embittered to be cast aside in favor of her sister, as she is portrayed in that other Anne B. potboiler Anne of the Thousand Days. Natalie Portman emotes her little heart out but she is strangely non-compelling as Anne, despite having the right coloring for her. But the winner of the Razzie for 'worst casting/limpest acting' here must go to Eric Bana. Mr. Bana is suitably tall and athletic and has a beard. But the same might be said for a life-size cardboard replica of himself, for all the passion or even signs of life which he displays here. He flounces through these proceedings in Henry's trademark huge-shouldered ermine embellished capes virtually monosyllabic and seeming embarrassed to be there at all. As he should have been. Never has such a large and otherwise masculine guy made so little substantial impression as one of history's most substantial men that he might as well be made of fog. Or marshmallows. He is a clotheshorse and that's about it in this movie. ************ The reviewer for the Mercury News, Bruce Newman, summed it up so well in his review at the time that I'm going to let him tell you what he thinks . . . As Anne, Portman attempts to transport her reign as Queen Padme Amidala of the planet Naboo in “Star Wars” to 16th century England. The only satisfying distinction between the two performances is that this time she’s executed for it. Portman has been quite good in pictures such as “Closer” and “Garden State.” But she can also be dreadful, as she’s been recently in “Goya’s Ghosts” and “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium,” and as she is again here. You can see her acting all over the place, and while Johansson is more subdued as her sister, she’s not much better. The picture is directed by Justin Chadwick, whose emergence from a well-deserved obscurity he is now ready to resume. Chadwick and Morgan have cooked up a potboiler, the sort of thing that might have been fun to watch with Bette Davis and Joan Crawford as the Boleyn sisters, while Charles Laughton lasciviously eyed the backs of their necks as Henry. Instead, we get Eric (“Hulk”) Bana, flouncing around in red velvet, his royal hopes for an heir to the throne extremely high, his Y-chromosome count apparently very low. When his first wife delivers a stillborn son, the king is fortunate enough to have among his courtiers England’s leading pimp, the Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey, the star of “Basic Instinct 2” and “The Reaping,” a bill of indictment to which one more unforgivable sin is now added). Norfolk is not only a pimp, but brother-in-law to a rural pimp with a learner’s permit and a stable of daughters – Sir Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance). Norfolk and Sir Thomas conspire to exploit the queen’s spotty record birthing babies and replace her with a mistress they control: AnneBut before Anne can assume the royal position, VIII gets an eyeful of Mary and decides Norfolk has procured the wrong Boleyn girl. This is slightly inconvenient because Mary is a recent newlywed, but only slightly. Hubby quickly signs onto the pimp apprenticeship program that evidently is the mark of manhood in the Boleyn family. All of this requires the forbearance of tedious plot details and historical exposition before we ever get to know much about the characters, principally the sisters. Morgan’s script dishes up melodrama instead of the sort of tart, intelligent power struggles we’ve come to expect from him. The roistering of this particular royal has been treated with far greater panache in the Showtime series “The Tudors.”
  5. 1 point
    Start out with the bo, which is a staff, which I've done some of. Then move on to nunchucks, and then swords. From what I remember only blackbelts get swords.
  6. 1 point
    Me neither. But I've been so disappointed in the recent movies that I have seen that keeping up with them just isn't a high priority for me. Just noticed that the online buzz says the fourth Trek reboot has been shelved. I will say they'd have been fools to make it without Chris Pine, so if they're not willing/able to pay him what they're contractually obligated to pay him, they're better off just forgetting the whole thing.
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    That would almost be funny, in a creepy sort of way.
  9. 1 point
    I disagree. If all of the evidence points to one conclusion... If repeated experimentation produces the same results. That's not being stubborn, that's a solution.
  10. 1 point
    Welcome, Caroline! A new member to play with, yay! I think even highly intelligent people get stuck on a certain way of thinking; it's just human nature. And I suspect that the real problem here is that the writers are not as smart as the character they are writing! (They've said so themselves.) But I also think they are trying to show that Sherlock is not as superhuman as he would like to be, or believes himself to be. I think the story is more about Sherlock learning to accept his own limitations than it is about how smart he can be. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's how we deal with them that's important. Or something like that. It sounds a bit preachy!
  11. 1 point
    Thanks for welcoming me Yes I agree with the " Sherlock has a bad habit of getting stuck on a particular hypothesis, and will do his best to stick with it even if evidence starts pointing in a different direction." I must say it sort of disappointed me , in the sense that it is the proper of highly intelligent people in every field ( like science for example )to contemplate a priori all kinds of hypotheses , including the exotic ones , compared to more mundane minds which are proner to dwelve into one theory . And then maybe correct it when facing other elements . I guess that it is more related to a storytelling constraints than failing to grasp Sherlock personality , since the whole hypotheses disply is very well used when Sherlock locally uses his talents to uncover a person 's personality or intentions, because he can explains it very succintly to the world by the bias of interaction with Watson for example . I did not know there was a shorter version of " A study in pink " , that makes sense now, but to me it looked it should have been introduced in a less obvious plot twist than " a taxi is here " and "the luggage is here " . I agree also with your explanation of the poison plot, but that hypothesis raises a lot of questions about its realizability , and it is kind of weird that S.H. seems to be very quick to raise these kind of questions in psychology mining stuff and questioning police investigation techniques but less adamant to do it when faced with a real plot movement. I have to rewatch to find other elements, and good, it is holidays
  12. 1 point
    Merry Christmas, everyone! Going to my sister's this morning for breakfast. We had our extended family Christmas last Sunday, but my sister includes me in certain things so I won't be by myself on Christmas Day. Hope everyone has a great day.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Collectively the Holmes boys are screaming 'Nooooooooooooooooo!' (Big Myc is screaming on the inside.) The last thing they want is to have to take the 'rents to more West End musicals. M: . . .the agony . . the horror . . .!
  15. 1 point
    The ages of the three main actors would have eventually caused problems should they have continued with the series; as Brett certainly wanted to complete the Canon. As they first appeared their ages were Brett 51, Burke 50 and Hardwick 54. The series does require a ‘suspension of belief’ however when it came to ages. Chronologists like Baring-Gould places The Speckled Band, for example, in 1883 which would give us Holmes at 29 and Watson at 31. Not remotely believable ages for Brett and Burke. More ‘suspension of belief’ would have been required should they have elected to film A Study In Scarlet (the story where Holmes and Watson first met.) Baring-Gould places this in 1881 with Holmes 27 and Watson 29. They did film The Musgrave Ritual (with Watson in tow) despite the fact that, in The Canon, this tale was told by Holmes himself as it had actually occurred in 1879 (when he was 25) and before he’d met the then 27 year old Watson. Finally of course there’s The Gloria Scott. Holmes first case and the reason that he became a Consulting Detective in the first place. This occurred in 1874 not long after Holmes had left university so he would have been 20 (too much to hope for a Brett who was 62 for the final recorded episode.) I suppose that the series makers could have given it the ‘Musgrave’ treatment and re-written it later in his career and with the good doctor at his side. Or maybe they could have done a Holmes/Dr Who crossover episode? A TARDIS would certainly have come in handy.👍
  16. 1 point
    Once Granada chose Brett to play Holmes, they just about had to cast another middle-aged actor (or two) as Watson, thereby setting the show in the later years of the books, and requiring modifications in adaptations of some early stories such as Sign. While I too am very fond of the romantic elements in the book, I will grudgingly admit that the episode works reasonably well without them.
  17. 1 point
    The video tributes to Jeremy on YouTube are devoted, but sadly cheesy, most of them. Here's our Sherlock singing "She Moved Through the Faire" Mark Gatiss and Benedict Cumberbatch, among others, ring in on JB's iconic Holmes
  18. 1 point
    Well reminded Hikari. I have a list of Holmes related births and deaths but hadn’t checked it for a while. No apologies for this short clip of The Master at work. Best Holmes ever.......no doubt👍
  19. 1 point
    Yesterday was the anniversary of a terrible day . . the day we lost Jeremy Brett. (September 12, 1995) Forever missed . . .forever Sherlock Holmes. "I've done 33 Sherlock Holmes stories and bits of them are all right. But the definitive Sherlock Holmes is really in everyone's head. No actor can fit into that category because every reader has his own ideal." ~ Jeremy Brett *************** "Trying to be Sherlock Holmes is like trying to catch an arrow in mid-flight." ~ Jeremy Brett
  20. 1 point
    It might be mentioned already so sorry for repeating: but I've come upon this picture at Tumblr and I realized that he looks a lot like our Sherlock. It never occured to me because Brett's face is much more angular and he has a different profile, but…
  21. 1 point
    He was on Sherlock once, the indignant old gent in the Diogenes Club. (Just in case anyone didn't know that.)
  22. 1 point
    Hello Douglas, I couldn’t agree more. Four other names come to mind who were all considered great actors in their time. Nicol Williamson and Robert Stephens who both only played Holmes once. And then, on radio we had Sir John Gielgud and Orson Welles. Stephens and Brett were best friends. For me, and many more, Brett stands alone as Holmes👍
  23. 1 point
    And not to mention, of course: that not only was Jeremy Brett, in my opinion, the best Sherlock Holmes; but he was probably one of the best actors to ever portray Sherlock Holmes! In fact, he was one of the best actors: period!
  24. 1 point
    Not sure where to put this but this is a great video essay on how Sherlock uses its editing to aid its visual storytelling:
  25. 1 point
    "I'm a Barbie girl in a Barbie world" (kinda scary that I know these lyrics thanks to johnspec and I have no idea who sings the actual song)
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.