ysbreker

Movie/TV recommendations

Recommended Posts

I just watched it myself; and yes it bloody was!

Same here. Loved how tight the script was, the last 30 seconds exempted (was a bit much, that one). Some psuedo-feminists are probably going to go bonkers over

the depiction of Irene (she technically loses to Sherlock, even though she beats him too; she's naked for a bit, etc)

, but whatever. I love how the writing doesn't waste a moment: it explores characters and keeps the story moving fast. It's stuffed with killer lines.

Series 6 of Doctor Who contained Steven Moffat's only two genuinely bad scripts (especially, I think, "Let's Kill Hitler"), but this managed to renew my faith in the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some psuedo-feminists are probably going to go bonkers over

the depiction of Irene (she technically loses to Sherlock, even though she beats him too; she's naked for a bit, etc)

, but whatever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat

I agree with a few points here, but find a lot of it rather tenuous. I do have to admit, certain aspects of this ep felt very 'Torchwood'...

On the topic of Hugo and being a film geek, I felt very smug when I guessed a few moments before it came up, that Scorsese would include (probably unecessary spoiler tags)

the last shot of The Great Train Robbery in the early-cinema montage near the end of the film (knowing that he homaged it with the last shot of Goodfellas)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments on that article are pretty great. Thanks, BBX.

Nah, Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug in the film. More amusing though, Barry Humphries is the Great Goblin.

Ah, right. I mixed-up between him and James Nesbitt. Cumberbatch does have the voice, so it should be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was shown a few days ago. From a friend:

"Mum, what are you watching?"

"It's like a parody of Indiana Jones, but it's not an Indiana Jones film?"

"A parody? Oh... Hang on, no, this is the new one!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same here. Loved how tight the script was, the last 30 seconds exempted (was a bit much, that one). Some psuedo-feminists are probably going to go bonkers over the depiction of

Irene

...

Yeah that was my one gripe; I was disappointed when she was introduced as a

dominatrix

. It has become such a cliché whenever a writer wants a morally ambiguous, strong yet alluring woman or is both a love/sex interest and an antagonist. Obviously she has to be some kind of

pseudo sex-worker!

It is a bit troubling from feminist perspective, yes. However as the episode went on I felt that they justified it in term of the plot.

Edited by DanJW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so; that detail is revealed in the opening few minutes. But added by request.

Edited by DanJW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't a big fan of how Irene Adler was treated either. I'm not sure if it has to do with Moffat or the expectations of modern audience or something else entirely, but they could have handled it better. Furthermore, the season cliffhanger was resolved in

the laziest manner imaginable

. The episode was still very entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah that was my one gripe; I was disappointed when she was introduced as

a dominatrix

. It has become such a cliché whenever a writer wants a morally ambiguous, strong yet alluring woman or is both a love/sex interest and an antagonist. Obviously she has to be some kind of

pseudo sex-worker

! However as the episode went on I felt that they justified it in term of the plot.

It also makes sense in terms of character development and analysis.

A large percentage of the episode was about Sherlock's sexuality, and it makes sense to have him face-off against someone who is so relaxed sexually. Watson's dialogue to Irene's job, it's all about Sherlock. Here you have two highly intelligent people with the same talents facing off. She beats him, and he beats her. He falls for her, and she, to her surprise, for him. They both make the exact same mistake: fall for the other person. The only reason he makes her beg is so that he feels superior to her, but in the end can't help himself and saves her life

.

Very good writing, if you ask me. Some of the comments on the Guardian article BBX linked to are very interesting, and are well worth a read.

Furthermore, the season cliffhanger was resolved in

the laziest manner imaginable

.

I respectfully disagree.

Moriarty, after finding himself in such a perilous situation, suddenly learns that Irene has something potentially dangerous from an MOD employee. Realizing he'll need Sherlock to live, he lets them go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree.

Moriarty, after finding himself in such a perilous situation, suddenly learns that Irene has something potentially dangerous from an MOD employee. Realizing he'll need Sherlock to live, he lets them go.

I guess I didn't think it that far. In any case, I was expecting something a bit more clever and a bit less cliché.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw the episode. I thought it was fantastic. I agree that Irene's profession was more to do with playing off the A-sexual Holmes, than making her "strong".

Edit: Hmm. I just read that Guardian article and it makes some excellent points. I didn't see the whole episodes (only really the final few acts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: Hmm. I just read that Guardian article and it makes some excellent points. I didn't see the whole episodes (only really the final few acts).

The comments make powerful counter-arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comments make powerful counter-arguments.

Yes, there is one in particular that stands out. I guess I should probably watch the whole episode before making up my mind, but I'd like to think it wasn't sexist, simply because I enjoyed what I saw quite a bit, and thought it was might be perhaps the best bit of Holmes I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I think it's sexist because people want it to be sexist, but what the hell do I know, I prefer to stay out of these shitstorms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there is one in particular that stands out. I guess I should probably watch the whole episode before making up my mind, but I'd like to think it wasn't sexist, simply because I enjoyed what I saw quite a bit, and thought it was might be perhaps the best bit of Holmes I've ever seen.

Well, as someone who does take issue with sexism and who has had to see enough of it in Arabic society to hate the idea forever: the episode wasn't, to me, sexist. I like to think I'm open-minded about things. I'm fairly sure I'm right about this one.

As Orvidos said, people see what they want to see. I take what is given to me and analyze it. *shrug*

Love the show. Already pre-ordered series 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I misses something, but the plot at the end of the new Sherlock episode made zero sense.

They put dead people on a plane, and expected no one to realize it? Let's suppose the Brits booked the whole flight so no live person could possibly be on it. What happens when it goes down? You're left with a roster of either fake names or names already tied to obituaries. No, that's no suspicious in the least. :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I misses something, but the plot at the end of the new Sherlock episode made zero sense.

They put dead people on a plane, and expected no one to realize it? Let's suppose the Brits booked the whole flight so no live person could possibly be on it. What happens when it goes down? You're left with a roster of either fake names or names already tied to obituaries. No, that's no suspicious in the least. :shifty:

I suppose the idea is that the sinister THEY would take care of the investigation, and without information on the people killed, simply saying "we've informed the families involved". But you're right, it probably doesn't hold up to too much scrutiny. (My biggest problem was the ending,

I can't imagine any scenario were Sherlock Holmes could successfully penetrate a terrorist cell in enough time to rescue the girl -- it seemed beyond fanciful

).

I saw the second episode of season 1 today... Boy, 90 minutes was too long for that story. It really kind of dragged in places. Lots of logic problems there, too, but none I spotted that affected the main story too much.

In other news:

I discovered that Wash and Book were never planned to be killed off in Serenity, it was simply because the actors couldn't commit to doing sequels, and Universal wouldn't greenlight the movie without sequels being locked (in case the film was a huge success). And as a bonus, I found Whedon's original 190 page "Kitchen Sink" version of the script... Same story, much happier ending. *wistful sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who is literally JUST going through firefly for the first time, and planned on watching Serenity in a matter of days... Could you spoiler tag or something?

With regards to the Sherlock ending, I believe that was a figment of her imagination, not actually what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually happened. That's why Sherlock smiled at the end, and why Mycroft made a reference to him.

Also, sorry about the Serenity spoilers... It's just six years old, so I assumed everyone would have seen it by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, it could be that Sherlock smiled at the remembrance of the woman, and I don't remember the particular mention of which you speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a pointed line for the audiences that went:

Watson: Is this really what happened?

Mycroft: I double checked this time. It would take Sherlock Holmes to fake this. *winks at audience*

I believe your version a lot more, though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right, I do remember that, and noted it especially on my second viewing. I still believe that my version is the truth. Once it fades to black for the first time, that's the end of what actually happened. After that is imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did not occur to me that it could have been her imagination. What a bittersweet happy ending

to figure out that Sherlock Holmes really does care.... in your dreams

.

By the way, and this has to be the hundredth time I mention Vonnegut on these forums, but that would be very similar (in tone) to the magnificient and somewhat haunting ending of The Sirens of Titan.

There was a pointed line for the audiences that went:

Watson: Is this really what happened?

Mycroft: I double checked this time. It would take Sherlock Holmes to fake this. *winks at audience*

I really should watch the episode again, it seems (although I do remember that quote now that it has been mentioned). I wonder how Holmes could have faked it. Faking the video (

I can't remember if the execution was recorded by the terrorists or whatever

) was the first thing that came to mind, but then the ending would make no sense whatsoever unless it was all some kind of allegory (if that's the correct term). I guess the obvious answer is that he faked the aftermath, making it look that

the execution went just peachy

, but then the double checking ability of Mycroft's crew is very much in question.

In my opinion, the imagination theory is the only one that would "save the plot" so to speak. To me it feels quite unlikely to have been the original intention, though (don't know why exactly). Throughout the episode I actually had a feeling that we would be seeing her again later (something that is backed by absolutely nothing, except maybe for the fact that she was, in some ways, so developed). Then I remembered that we are speaking of a mini-series series, and it may well afford to

lose

such a character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now