MovieChat Forums > PrimeMinisterX > Replies
PrimeMinisterX's Replies
Even at three hours, they still cut a LOT out of the novel (and changed a lot of other details, too).
That would've been a good idea, especially if they added an extra hour in. Considering the fact that the Count of Monte Cristo novel is considerably longer than The Three Musketeers, it would've made a lot of sense.
A true classic. I read an abridged version in high school, without realizing it was abridged, and I thought it was excellent. About twenty years later, when I found out that the one I had read was only about half the length of the complete story, I sought out an unabridged version and read the Robin Buss translation. It was also excellent.
The Count of Monte Cristo is, hands down, one of the most entertaining novels ever written.
After watching it twice, I concluded that Midway is a pretty good film. (I wasn't too sure how I felt after the first go-around.)
Moonfall is terrible and watching it was a painful experience. I'm not sure why he thought that was a good script.
The real question is why did he have to make this movie at all. It sucked. And I say that as someone who really enjoyed some of Emmerich's other films, including Independence Day, The Patriot and Midway.
As for why he needed the Chinese though, I bet it's as simple as the fact that the funding wasn't available elsewhere.
I halfway agree but only halfway.
When I saw the trailer for the film, all the way back in 2011, I thought it looked very interesting. Soon after it hit video I tried to watch it twice, but both times in the early going I did find it a little hard to follow and just didn't feel drawn in, so I stopped it. However, last night I decided to sit down and watch to the end no matter what.
Having now seen the entire film, while I agree it is a little difficult at times to follow, I think it's mostly because there are a lot of names thrown about and it can be difficult to know who is being spoken of at various times. Chiefly, the problem that I had was that it took me too long to figure out who the Earl of Essex and the Earl of Southhampton were. But over time the story started to come into focus and I have to say that all in all I really enjoyed the movie. Now that I have it all sorted, I think it's a film that would reward a second viewing.
Considering that Emmerich is known primarily for disaster movies, I was surprised that he had it in him to do a film like this. It is beautiful to look at and does a great job of recreating the time period. I suppose we saw some of what he could do in this regard with The Patriot but this film is on another level in terms of production design and cinematography. As I also really enjoyed The Patriot, it makes me think it's a shame that Emmerich has spent so much of his career making nonsense like 2012 and Moonfall instead of making more period pieces.
My favorite movie of hers, by far, was Sound of My Voice. That was a fun little indie. She was a co-writer on that one.
Here's a trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8xElfWyexo
I still go to theaters about twice a month on a average. It's my go-to thing to do if I just want to get out of the house but have nothing specific to do and it's still the way that I want to see big movies first.
I also still buy movies on disc. If you're dependent on streaming, then you're letting it be up to the streamers which films you have access to. And that's not to mention the lack of special features.
You're right, though: The combo of streaming, covid and the over-reliance on tentpole movies by studios has done a lot to hurt theaters.
Having just watched it, I can tell you that while there are some similarities, it's not the same.
Obviously the fact that the ship sinks will be in both films, and it's true that there is a lower-class guy [Jamie] who falls in love and has a romance with a girl on the ship, but that's really about where the similarities end. Even that plot line is not that similar, because the girl he falls in love with is not a rich snobbish girl but a church girl who is going to America to be part of a religious movement, and furthermore there's a very weird plot line where she gets raped by a guy who is associated with Jamie and there's a lot of drama surrounding that.
You also have a plot about another woman who runs into an old lover on the ship and then decides to divorce her husband in order to run off with him and there's yet another plot line about an alleged baby-murdering woman who takes a job as a nanny and ultimately tries essentially to steal a baby.
The two films really are quite different.
I did not, nor do I even recall it existing. I ran across the DVD at the library the other day and checked it out and watched it.
It seems like I would at least remember seeing ads for it but nope.
Yes, he seems to have recovered. I'm happy about that because I think he's a talented director. I'd have for him to have ended up in permanent director jail.
That's interesting. I'd love for Cynthia to have gotten a big break and gotten a high-profile role in a film with one of these guys.
Of his post-2000 work, I've seen Driven, Exorcist: The Beginning, The Legend of Hercules and The Bricklayer. I feel like in the early 2000s he was still doing at least decent work even if it wasn't up to the level of his earlier stuff, but by the time he got to The Legend of Hercules he had completely lost his touch.
I have heard Mindhunters is okay so at some point I should check it out.
Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, The Long Kiss Goodnight and Deep Blue Sea is a really solid run. TLKG is one of the most underrated action films of all time.
According to Arnold--and I think that Sly may have confirmed this but I'm not certain--he read the script for the film and thought it was no good but he said that he was interested, with the intention of tricking Sly into taking the role instead. He figured that if Sly thought he was stealing something away from Arnold, he'd go for it. So at least according to what Arnold says, he bamboozled Stallone into starring in a bad movie.
I think I skipped that one on purpose.
I saw Driven in the theater and enjoyed it. I then tried rewatching it several years later and liked it a lot less. One day I may have to give it a third go-around as a tie-breaker.
Renny Harlin's career has been very strange. He delivered some well-made, really entertaining films in the 90s but then totally fell off in the 21st century to the point where his films don't even seem like they were made by the same guy. That Hercules movie he did in 2014 is genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
It's certainly worthy of a better score than a 4.4
That is a litttle too harsh, in my opinion. If someone says it's not a good movie, I won't argue. It may be a bad film, but it's also a strange film, and in its strangeness and bizarre qualities I found it entertaining. The whole premise is bonkers and scenes like washing the gun and Stallone in a diaper during the dream sequence are just so weird that they make the film interesting. Plus, I enjoyed seeing Estelle Getty tackle a different role than the mother in Golden Girls.
I would classify the movie as an "interesting failure." I won't say it's a good film but I would rather watch a movie like this than watch a generic, by-the-numbers action film that just feels like a movie that I've already seen a hundred times before.
I have to disagree entirely.
I watched this film for the first time soon after it was released and I've not only watched it several times since, but I also used to own it on DVD. I think it's a lot of fun.
There are a lot of memorable scenes and lines of dialogue, some good action, and Lou Diamond Phillips gives a great performance.
The 1993 Disney film is a surprising amount of fun. I think that the casting choices for the musketeers is questionable--Charlie Sheen doesn't fit at all--but that is made up for by the excellent casting of Tim Carry, who gives an outstanding performance as Richeliu. It also is surprisingly dark at times for an early 90s Disney film.
There was an adaptation in 2011 as well. It is a very loose adaptation of the source material, and honestly not a great film, but I thought it was kind of enjoyable for what it was.