
It started out confusing but once they explained a few things it turned out to be a pretty good movie.
DukeofNuke wrote: Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
DukeofNuke wrote: Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
Pithecanthropus wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
I enjoyed the movie on its face, but I have a huge problem with re-booting a character who has already been written, written about, studied, picked apart, re-studied and analyzed as much as Holmes.
The most regrettable aspect of Rathbone's movies was the buffoonery of Watson
DukeofNuke wrote: Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
rjprice wrote: Evil Dead
About what I expected from a low budget 1981 horror flick.
I guess the musical will appeal to those with a certain sense of humour, hipsters and the like.
rjprice wrote: Evil Dead
About what I expected from a low budget 1981 horror flick.
I guess the musical will appeal to those with a certain sense of humour, hipsters and the like.
rjprice wrote: Evil Dead was OK. I've seen a lot worse. It beat the hell out of Megapython vs Gatoroid, which I gave up on after less than 10 minutes.
I think with more money and at least someone in charge of continuity Evil Dead could have been a legitimately good movie. The story wasn't terribly original but the fact the same basic story had been done to death by 1981 and keeps getting done over and over again only serves to point out how compelling it is. An extra 10-20 minutes to allow for some character development might have made them seem at least 2-dimensional, which also would have helped make it scary rather than just funny.
Of course, it is the "so bad it is good" factor, coupled with Sam Raimi's later success that makes Evil Dead a cult classic, much like John Carpenter's Dark Star. If either movie had been done better they could have been good to very good movies but never would have developed the kind of following they have now due to the sentimental "look how far he has come" sort of perspective we get when we look at both directors' later works.
I enjoyed Evil Dead but it isn't a great movie, not even an especially good movie. It isn't a bad movie though and I plan to watch the two sequels.
Freakout Jackson wrote: Once.
Decidedly in the chick flick category but I freakin loved it.
NoExit wrote: whats a zune ?
NoExit wrote: whats a zune ?
user wrote:Freakout Jackson wrote: Once.
Decidedly in the chick flick category but I freakin loved it.
The singer/songwriter in thrall aspect of it kept it going. It's also a musician's flick - and how many chick flicks have a guy desperately asking a gal to stay over on the first date and totally bombing?
TechnoBill wrote: Arthur - the 2011 remake with Russell Brand
I liked it. Russell played a very believable and charming drunk.