jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (12/17/85)
>Actually the riddle was worded a bit more difficultly. The riddle was: "A >man looks out of his hut -- out the north southern window. He sees a bear. >What color is the bear?" (This is just from memory, maybe someone has the >novelization?) My apologies; I believe you're correct. >... I am happy that the special effects, etc., were good enough to attract >large audiences to this film. Otherwise I would have certainly been >deprived of one of the few *good* portrayals of Sherlock Holmes on screen. Must everything be sugar-coated with special effects to draw an audience? Can't a provocative idea (in this case, SH as a young man) be combined with tight writing, good acting, and imaginative directing to draw an audience that raves about the movie? Or have both the audiences and the movie makers simply become too damned lazy? These are, I realize, rhetorical questions. Any rhetorical answers? >The young version presented in this film is a refreshing change from Basil >Rathbone in the black and white Holmes films (which I am not particularly >fond of). For a kiddie, special-effect, movie, there was remarkable care in >presenting characters as Doyle described them. I agree that a change from Rathbone is interesting. The "Mystery" series on PBS ran six episodes of SH mysteries using a different, interesting (and acerbic) Holmes and a stunning Watson -- no buffoon -- but entirely believable. I guess the crux of the matter is indicated in your phrase "For a kiddie, special-effect movie...." Damn it, I wish, oh, I wish for movies to be written up to the adults for kids to see, not down to the kids for adults to see. The problem is not limited to Spielberg or SF, but the striking difference between potential and achievement makes it all the more bitter. >(Well, I also liked the "glass man". :-) >-- >Darin Adler {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!ut-dillo!darin **** minor plot spoiler follows, then end of message. **** If you mean the glass man special-effect, I agree. It was the one most consistent with the plot. It was also the most original. Certainly more believable as a hallucination than the reality of an ornate Egyptian temple concealed within a London warehouse. -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable) ucbvax!ucla-cs!ism780!jimb ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa ^ this asterisk is necessary!
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (12/17/85)
> His movies are the cinematic equivalent of comic books.
I strongly object to this statement. There are many comic books that are
much better than any Spielberg movie.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"You won't believe this, but normally, I'm dead."