Trying something: Ordered two more movie versions of "Murder on the Orient Express" (cheap, sale priced DVDs). See if watching different versions "teaches" me anything.

I have been binge watching the TV series Boston Legal on IMDb tv. IMDb tv is a channel that requires you to watch commercials to view the content but at least with this series, the only one I have viewed to date using IMDb tv, those commercial breaks have not been what I would consider unreasonable. In my view the commercial breaks compare to what you would have experienced in the 1980's and 1990's on Network television. Possibly even less. I started watching season one on Thursday evening around 5 pm and I ended up watching until around 3am Friday. It seems that I can't stand the show.

lMDb page for Boston Legal: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402711/
I am not sure what else held my viewing attention at that time but I did not watch the series during its original run on Network TV.


Wheels

Finished the Expanse since there's only 6 episodes this season and it's the last of the show. I feel like too much time was wasted introducing characters and plot elements on Laconia that can't and wont get resolved.
Still, it was the best scifi show on TV (or streaming) over the last few years.

Basil Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes in Washington" (1942). Sherlock's first visit to the USA. Entertaining.

Another Wartime (WW2) film showing how the USA and England worked together -- while Sherlock "saved the day". The "bad guy" in this film was smart but not as smart as Moriarty (not in the film) or Sherlock.

Allen,if you're on a Sherlock Holmes kick I can recommend this Youtube channel that puts out lots of Sherlock audio books and other stories by Arthur Conan Doyle https://www.youtube.com/c/SherlockHolmesStoriesMagpieAudio

Thank you. I'll check.

Was it a German spy or maybe that would have simply been too contrived?

Got the impression it was an American known to the public as a "good guy". Or, an English individual who had lived in America a very long time. He was another "bad guy" who wanted to give/sell information to Germans. At first appearance, he behaved like Moriarty and looked something like him so, at first, I thought it might be Moriarty (played by a different actor).

One on-line article said that Rathbone got tired of playing Sherlock due to the sameness of the individual wartime movies. He was under contract to make 3 a year for a certain number of years. But, he quit before finishing the contract -- apparently around 1946 (WW2 was over). It was also said that his first 2 movies set in the 1880/1890 period were "big budget" grade A. The wartime movies were deliberately grade B types.

We don't pay attention what's been written about the movies while watching. We don't pay attention to who's doing the acting. We just let a movie flow however it flows. The question the movie has to answer is: Was it an entertaining way to pass the time? So far, "yes" Only downside is the Watson character -- silly/dumb at times and it "sticks out" -- having seen how "serious and smart" Watson is in other Sherlock Holmes movies/TV shows.

I can certainly see Rathbone's perspective since he probably felt he wasn't being challenged artistically as an actor.

On a related note, I've always been amazed at those actors who can play the same character on a daytime soap opera for decades and decades. I guess as long a the paychecks keep coming they are fine!

I get the feeling that actors who do long term gigs like soaps are basically not really acting eventually, they're just saying the lines as themselves

As for Rathbone, Holmes etc - I get fed up watching infallible heroes somehow locking horns with "genius" level villains, like it's their own game they play together amongst hapless collateral. I get the same feeling with superhero movies actually

I looked up the film on IMDB and I found this bit of trivia which I found hilarious:

"The dubbed German version released in 1959 removed all Nazi references from the dialogue. The story of this edited version is about gangsters trying to get hold of a secret medicine formula that could be dangerous if in the wrong hands."

Your description is apt.

All the Sherlock Holmes we've watched have made it clear by what Sherlock has said "in so many words" multiple times. Its EXACTLY that way with Sherlock. He solves problems/crimes strictly for the "fun of it" -- and the occasional intellectual competition with smart criminals. And, Moriarty said out loud he committed crime mostly for the "fun of it" (my words). As Moriarty said in one episode, he'll retire from crime and become a Scientist (he was tired of crime and solving Science problems was now more interesting) -- once he's gotten rid of Sherlock by outsmarting him (not just shooting him) -- his biggest challenger in the "brain game".

Meantime, so far, I like to "follow the reasoning" and see if, occasionally, I recognize the clues before Sherlock makes them clear. I did better than usual in yesterday's movie.

I saw two movies this weekend:

1) "Beyond the Trek" -- interesting small budget independent science fiction film. There were some slow spots where I wished the plot would progress faster, though, but overall thought it was not great, but fair. ** 1/2 out of **** stars.

2) "The Last Duel" -- Not bad but could have been great. This one isn't "Gladiator" good, folks, but since it was a medieval movie without stupid CGI effects, I had to watch. Apparently Ridley Scott tried to be as accurate as possible to history on this one, minus the lack of wearing helmets into battle for the main actors(which drove me nuts) and the half face mask in the actual duel itself, but these are minor gripes that can easily be overlooked. What I think holds this film back from being truly great was how they structured the plot and narrative, dividing the film into three segments of three different perspectives, showing the same events as perceived through the minds of each of the three main characters. I'm fine with unreliable narrators--in fact, that's what we got a fair bit of here, but in terms of compressing a story into a delectable, tasty bite, I felt there was some needless repetition that could have been avoided with some creative screenwriting and editing. I've seen this sort of film done before but better, and bet it could have been shrunk to around an hour and forty five minutes instead of two and a half hours. Still, I liked the movie and the fight scenes were fantastic. *** out of **** stars.

Uh, me too! This is the movie that created the "many viewpoints on the same event" plotline. I have the Criterion dvd.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042876/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Speaking of Ridley Scott, there are several things about his career that I find quite fascinating. First of all, his box office success has been all over the place. He's made some huge blockbuster films like "Gladiator" and "Hannibal" and he's also made some big box office flops like "The Last Duel" and "1492: Conquest of Paradise".

He also had one of the most brilliant starts out of the gate of any director I know. His first three films were absolutely creatively brilliant even though only one was a commercial success: The Duelists, Alien and Blade Runner.

Basil Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes Faces Death" (1943). Set during WW2 -- but a "normal" "who done it". No reference to Germany or Nazi operatives. An average/typical Holmes story.

A wealthy Family in a "huge house" in the country was giving rooms to injured military who needed prolonged care. Those military were less injured than they seemed -- and had something going on. Watson was there as a Doctor to help look after them, The butler and maid were constantly acting "suspicious". The Family had lived there for centuries -- and had a special ceremony when one of the family died.

The "bad guy(s)" realized the huge old house had a several hundred year old "secret" -- worth millions. And, so, the violence/murders began. Sherlock, knowing Watson, came to help -- and, before it was over, had to face "certain" death himself.

Basil Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes "in" The Spider Woman" (1943). NOT a "normal" "who done it". A BELOW average/ATYPICAL Holmes story.

Very early in the movie, Sherlock knows who done it (committed the many murders) -- but has no proof. Very early the "mastermind" knows Sherlock knows and plots Sherlock's death. They meet face to face at times. Sherlock nearly dies a couple times. Very little suspense. Very little to "figure out". As the Mastermind walked off stage in the last scene -- UN-cuffed in the custody of a known stupid police officer -- I was thinking the Mastermind would easily escape and prolong the movie. But, no. The movie was over.

Not real good. I could have written it and been embarrassed that I did. This one did not pass muster.

Allen, have you ever watched the old BBC series "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People" - I think you would like them given your current watch list.

Fear City: New York vs The Mafia.



A solid crime doc, not as good as Cocaine Coyboys but still a decent watch.

Looked interesting. I started the "buy" process. However, I quickly found that the "trick" is to get the correct DVD version (as usual) -- some good, some bad versions (as far as DVD reproduction concerned). I can't sort through it today.