arthursranch

OK, maybe the English subtitles aren't perfect. And maybe the foley artist's efforts could be better (or better edited). But the actors, screenplay, directing, sets, and cinematography are the best of all Sherlock Holmes adaptations. Perhaps the single Jeremy Brett episode "The Abbey Grange" matches it for screenplay (Trevor Bowen) and directing (?) and cinematography (note the use of reflections).

The Sherlock Holmes character in the Russian adaptation is logical (but not coldly so), understanding, and, in some sense, warm. He is capable of humorous pranks. In other words, he is not so distant that he seems not quite sane. The Conan Doyle stories portray Holmes as a more unusual person, like the Cumberbatch characterization

The first half of the Acquaintances episode cleverly and amusingly cements the relationship between Holmes and Watson, and introduces Mrs. Hudson as knowledgable and understanding of Holmes' ways. In the second half, Holmes solves a mystery. Spoiler Alert - the English subtitled word "motley" probably should be "mottled."

This version of Hounds is sensational. I recommend viewing with a good audio system as the background music can really pop. The same for the whole series.

This episode has remarkably strong characters - the writers were not reluctant to shift attention from Holmes and Watson. These characters are a reason to watch Hounds over and over. For example, Evgeniy Steblov as Dr. Mortimer is highly engaging. He is entertaining while reading the Hounds curse, kind of a reverse HItchcock where the McGuffin is the curse, about which no one really cares about the details.

Nikita Mikhalkov as Sir Henry is equally engaging. His introduction into the story is unconventional, and might seem out of place at first. The Sherlock-Cumberbatch series might have benefited from more development of Russell Tovey's Henry. The Barrymore's are also fleshed out.

The production company is Lenfilm which, I am told, refers to a Leningrad organization. I assume the exteriors are from that part of Europe. I love the lighting (not the low contrast flat kind we often see). The camera work is on a par with the BBC of the same era - excellent in movement and angles. The execution of the Foley artist's contributions is not always great but, to my mind, adds character.

I purchased the series DVD with English subtitles. The video looks good on a 60-inch screen. I'm not in the industry, I had a screen test at 20th Century Fox in 1948. I didn't pass the test.

This series started out extremely strong with an interesting and (to me) original story. I give the first episode a 10. Then it went formulaic and even trite.

These weaknesses could have been forgiven if, in some/most of the episodes the chief adversaries (the officers in the bureaucracy) had been something like Inspector Slack in the 1870's Joan Hickson Miss Marple's, i.e., long suffering and always losing. In other words, the series would have suited me better if some of the episodes were "lighter," some, not all. Real life is characterized by stifling bureaucracy, so one episode exhausts this message.

Perhaps they have too many recurring characters. Perhaps some of these characters are not good actors. One thing is clear to me: the writing is weak. I was highly disappointed at the early episode where Morse is to solve puzzles. Didn't we just see that in Sherlock? And it wasn't a good idea there. I knew as soon as Inspector Thursday's family was introduced that they were going to be kidnapped. That's how trite it was.

Shaun Evans and Roger Allam make a great pairing, no complaints there. I am impressed with Shaun Evans.

In S1E1 did anyone notice what the red letters in the credits add up to Lonsdale? I'll note in the errors that the Jaguars all had 3-point shoulder harnesses, in 1965?

I read the description in the cable TV guide and knew the whole plot. It is so corny I enjoyed it just to see how they developed it. Jeremy Irvine strips to his skivvies and reveals a very nice boyish body (for his age) under his boyish face. The plot allows him to remain in an attractive state of undress for the majority of the movie. Just to be clear, that's what the movie is all about.

And what's wrong with that? It's not meant to be serious. And cheap! Hardly any writing, probably incredible tax credits from the State of New Mexico, a few hand-held cameras.

A little writing could have improved the film a lot. What I mean is that the development could be more plausible. M Douglas was just ridiculous. Couldn't even play this part well - M. Emmett Walsh if they were making a serious film.

Just because it's trite and derivative doesn't mean it can't be a quality picture (this wasn't one). One has to blame the director for making such a garbage film. Not much left on the cutting room floor either.

Still, Jeremy Irvine makes a cute and attractive tracker, so have something to soften your intellect and see it.

I liked this movie a lot except ....

Happy ending, adventure, beautiful people, beautiful exteriors, beautiful landscapes, fun, some light-hearted banter, good story. Did I say fun? Fun.

The best character for me was Luis Guzman. The sidekick was better than the star, who was OK, plenty handsome as required, perhaps a little wooden. I just found out that Henry Cavill was in the cast at 17.

I rated a 7. Why not a 10, or an 8.5? The opening and the imprisonment needs to get over with faster. Richard Harris's part drags and drags, and forces the revenge part to be cut short. What a waste! That's why I call it "unbalanced." The ratings of 6 to 8 seem about right to me.

I'd rate the post-Harris part as a 9. I skip all the way past the Harris part to start the movie at the point of escape.

I'd like a new cut that lengthens the revenge and shortens the openings.

As for the bad ratings on IMDb, this is a movie and movie business, not a book. Few movies should ever be compared with the book. The bad ratings seem all from disappointment book vs. movie. Kyle MacLachlan's Dune shows what happens when movie tries to follow book.

This program is well-written, well-paced, and fun from the start. No drama here. Even in grind-'em-out TV, "A Matter of Murder" shows that if the writing and acting are good, inexpensive on-studio-grounds productions can be excellent.

Telly Savalas, Patricia Crowley and Darren McGavin are the lead players, and I liked Marc Rambeau who looked like a star to me. His career and life were short. Likewise for Lee Kinsolving of the same era.

For me, "A Matter of Murder" ages better than most 1950's and 1960's material because Patricia Crowley's character is smart, complete, and even dominant. She isn't the white-glove-wearing housewife that are seen so much in this period (see, for example, Julie Adams in "A Little White Frock").

Have fun.

Ouch. This was the first DVD I ever purchased, and the first I gave to the local thrift store.

First of all, I was subjected to Richard Harris all too much at the beginning, and what was that all about? How did that contribute to the film? Film is all about compression of characters and more-or-less smooth progression through the story. I'd have left the Richard Harris part on the cutting room floor. To present "the wrong person is on the throne" can be done very effectively in many other (shorter) ways.

Second of all, Joaquin Phoenix's character was wholly one-dimensional, the result of which was a uniformly downward-feeling mood. Think of Stephen Boyd in Wyler's Ben Hur. Of course, Gladiator was a kind of remake of that one, which was a remake of a really good one. I now better appreciate Francis X Bushman.

And what was the dog all about? I get all that Roman Valhalla stuff, but the execution was pretty corny, all dreamy and, can I say it, cheap. And let me digress - Richard Harris's part in Caviezel's Count of Monte Cristo might better have been left 60% on the cutting room floor. It gave the same problem, taking time and focus from the meat of the story.

Gladiator was a one-and-done for me.

How fast can character development be accomplished without stereotypes? See Jose Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac, and George C Scott in Patton.

I mostly watch just the long opening scene of Cyrano, which has two sensational pieces. The first is the listing of insults, all done in one cut. Compare this with Steve Martin's listing of insults in ROXANNE that had, as I counted, 37 cuts. How bad was that? Just this one piece set Jose Ferrer as top tier, later proved to me in SHIP OF FOOLS. The camera movement and staging of the "monologue of insults" demonstrates the skill of filmmakers of that era.

The second piece of the opening scene is the fencing. I think it is the best and most exciting fencing scene in all of film. Fencing skills were a big asset to actors as Basil Rathbone's parts attest to. I don't know what actor played Ferrer's fencing opponent in this scene, but he was good at swordplay. Perhaps he was a fencer first and an actor second.

Had Steve Martin been allowed to do a one-cutter, he also would have been sensational. What a good idea ROXANNE was, but what a bad execution!

What's not to like about this film? Mindless action, great characters, dime-novel romance, wonderful scenes and scenery, ridiculous premise, even more ridiculous action sequences, gender confusion (from the DVD cover, "She's your man").

And more, no message (OK, a really weak and fun one, capped by my favorite quote having to do with a cola-based soft drink), creditable acting, Ben Johnson AND Harry Carey Jr. Most of all, this film is visually highly original/creative. I wonder sometimes how such a movie gets produced (like, how did Michael Nesmith get Repo Man out of the Hollywood grinder?).

My DVD front cover lists Melanie Griffith and Ben Johnson but not David Andrews, who was excellent. A more well-known male lead would not have worked (in my opinion). Tim Thomerson's part is memorable. I enjoy the sci-fi back-references such as the cameo by the original GORT, a sci-fi tradition.

I rate it a 7.5/10, I put it on the same shelf as Legally Blond, and I play it when I just want G-rated entertainment (and no CGI). I liked Melanie Griffith's portrayal/character a lot.

Spoiler Alerts for Columbos are provided in the opening scenes of every Columbo. Not really mysteries, just great entertainment.

As other reviews have noted, the pacing of this episode is impressive. The realism on shipboard including the droning sound of the vessel maintains atmosphere throughout the episode. Columbo holding his balance in an interior passageway while the ship rolls (I think this is real) nails the mood. I have looked for Gazzara directing ever since.

Solving a crime (or a problem or a crisis) in forced confined (and real) environments offers challenges and rewards for the director and cinematographer (and the sound people), rewards for the viewer.

I thought the cast was strong. Robert Vaughan as the long-suffering villain was quite good (even though I'm not a fan of this acting style). OK, he was exceptional. Dean Stockwell was not so strong, but Columbo's are all about Columbo, so it doesn't matter.

My favorite DVD bar none. Denholm Elliott's Smiley was a brilliant interpretation in the shadow of Alec Guinness, not a surprise if one remembers his role in Woody Allen's "September." Glenda Jackson and Diane Fletcher might have been given more screen time. Christian Bale was smartly cast.

I've watched the DVD perhaps 30 times, more than either Tinker Tailor 1979 or Smiley's People 1982 (but they are several hours longer, I'd have to reload the DVD player for these, and each have gotten 10 or more viewings). To digress, Bernard Hepton's part in Smiley"'s People is scary good. To digress again, Cyril Cusack's "Control" in Spy Who Came in from the Cold" is chilling (though the style of the film is badly dated).

Is this program a mystery at all? I think "A Murder of Quality" is mostly a commentary by Le Carre on the sins and pretensions and hypocrisy of the decayed British Empire of the 1950's. To me, the mystery is much in the background - it provides a great format. In contrast, Tinker-Tailor and Smiley's People use the complex mystery to illuminate the hypocrisies of the East and West, but are strong core mysteries.

When I first viewed "A Murder of Quality" I was slightly put off by the structure, particularly the quick scene changes. I now think it was clever and possibly the reason I view the story over and over. I'm not sure who might get my credit/praise. Perhaps it's J Le Carre himself since he has screen writing credit.

On my DVD, Diane Fletcher's photo appears for Glenda Jackson in her (Glenda's) biography. There is no Diane Fletcher biography.

Among the movies I rate as my Top Movies of All Time, Seven Samurai is the only one I watch every time it is on TV. Three hours and one is sorry it is over. The Godfather has the same feature, but I don't ever watch the Godfather clear through as (in my opinion) the great character development is at the very beginning, and only with Marlon Brando's character.

Seven Samurai has the most efficient character development I can think of. The introduction of Kambei Shimada as the leader is brilliant. Saving a baby from a villain. How good is that! The introduction of Kyuzo as the swordsman is quiet and brief and unbelievably compelling as is his further participation in the story. I liked the brief introduction of the other characters as well.

The camera work and photography, some of it moving, are themselves moving. I can see another remake, maybe "The Muslim Brotherhood," where seven tribal outcasts save the day. "The Magnificent Seven" was an entertaining remake, but hard to view once one has seen the original.

Despite the silent-to-talkie transition style, I liked this one better than the Bogart one. In fact, I think it exposes Bogart's counterfeit toughness (among other things, he was too short). Ricardo Cortez was a great choice. Perhaps George Raft might have been a better Sam Spade in the 1941 version. The similarity in dialogue between the two movies begs the issue of insufficient originality in the later version.

Comparing 1931 v 1941 characters, I think only Sydney Greenstreet provides a more interesting product. As the same (or similar) character, Alison Skipworth, as Madame Barabbas in Satan Met a Lady 1936, finishes second. From that same movie, Marie Wilson finishes second to Una Merkel as Effie, with 1941's Lee Patrick a distant third.

I like them all. I like the structure of the mystery. It reminds me (it's just me) a little of John Le Carre mysteries where, as in Tinker Tailor, the investigator knows the answer from the beginning.

This, and Penguin Pool Murder, are just plain fun and pleasant. Both are well written, surprisingly well photographed and edited. As I get older, I like less drama and more mystery, and more characters. Not a bad format for a TV mystery, like a light-hearted Columbo.

I did not have an appreciation of James Gleason until viewing these two. He is often a minor character actor as is Edna May Oliver (sometimes Mae). Both fare very well as lead actors. It was fun to see a younger Leo G Carroll.

These old movies give one a glimpse of early 1930's America, although perhaps an inaccurate one (it was Depression time). Murder on a Honeymoon shows Catalina Island offshore of Los Angeles in 1935 and of travel/commute by seaplane. It hasn't changed much except that the seaplanes are gone.