Page Summary
evil-erato.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ballyharnon.livejournal.com - (no subject)
madilayn.livejournal.com - Re:
dejaspirit.livejournal.com - (no subject)
jlh.livejournal.com - Re:
ballyharnon.livejournal.com - Re:
sisterpandora.livejournal.com - Re:
sisterpandora.livejournal.com - (no subject)
wordplay.livejournal.com - Re:
misscora.livejournal.com - Re:
jlh.livejournal.com - Re:
ballyharnon.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ballyharnon.livejournal.com - Re:
misscora.livejournal.com - Re:
sisterpandora.livejournal.com - Re:
sisterpandora.livejournal.com - Re:
misscora.livejournal.com - Re:
Active Entries
Style Credit
- Style: Clarity for Paletteable by
- Resources: Holiday
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 10:05 pm (UTC)'[He] devotes his life to his boys' eh? Creepy.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 03:27 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 04:58 am (UTC)Anyway, the book and the two movie versions (Peter O'Toole did it again in the late 60s) are sort of schooltime novel classics, and I can't help but think that canon!Lupin borrows, at least a little, from Goodbye, Mr. Chips. But the mustache is just too much. Though to be fair, he looks more like Donat in The 39 Steps, which is an ENTIRELY different movie.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 06:14 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 09:12 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 12:31 pm (UTC)I saw the Martin Clunes version of this story last year sometime and NEVER would have put this story or character together with canon!Lupin, I think b/c of the differences in physicality. Clunes!Chips was physically awkward in a puppyish, not-quite-grown-into-his-body way, whereas I think of Lupin as more haggard and drawn. I think that the idea of canon!Lupin as informed by this character is terribly interesting, though, and worth thinking about a bit. Thanks.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 01:37 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 03:28 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 03:33 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:57 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 06:07 pm (UTC)And while I can't agree with the review author there, I will say that the Grand Wizard video section is one of the best showcases of all the worst special effects used in the 1980s - it's so horrible it's great.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 06:10 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 10:09 pm (UTC)