Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
7ronin said:
I was saying the rest of the cast was B-list, not the major principals.
Poseidon
- Thread starter Boris Godunov
- Start date
I was saying the rest of the cast was B-list, not the major principals.
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
I loved the original Poseidon Adventure, and will be seeing this. I'll admit I'm not expecting great things though.
Didn't watch the TV movie though. The switching to a terrorist bomb was a bit much to play on, and I knew this film was coming anyway.
Didn't watch the TV movie though. The switching to a terrorist bomb was a bit much to play on, and I knew this film was coming anyway.
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
As long as there is a fat old bird swimming massive and unrealistic distances underwater I will be content 
[
QUOTE=Boris Godunov]Indeed. The bomb blows a hole in the side of the hull, water comes in, and the ship suddenly capsizes. Ships don't capsize like that. The thing would just sink. It might roll over on its side like the Andrea Doria, but it wouldn't flip over 180 degrees.
Just another example of why made for TV movies are generally thoughtless crap.[/QUOTE]
Battleships, at least, do tend to turn turtle. A modern cruise liner might be similar to a battleship in terms of having a substantial superstructure. If they have crossboard tank-pumping to maintain stability and they lose the pumping ability, they might be predisposed to roll.
But, it being Hollywood, more than likely there's no actual basis for the capsizing besides the fact that it is essential to the plot.
QUOTE=Boris Godunov]Indeed. The bomb blows a hole in the side of the hull, water comes in, and the ship suddenly capsizes. Ships don't capsize like that. The thing would just sink. It might roll over on its side like the Andrea Doria, but it wouldn't flip over 180 degrees.
Just another example of why made for TV movies are generally thoughtless crap.[/QUOTE]
Battleships, at least, do tend to turn turtle. A modern cruise liner might be similar to a battleship in terms of having a substantial superstructure. If they have crossboard tank-pumping to maintain stability and they lose the pumping ability, they might be predisposed to roll.
But, it being Hollywood, more than likely there's no actual basis for the capsizing besides the fact that it is essential to the plot.
Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
PrinceOfLeigh said:As long as there is a fat old bird swimming massive and unrealistic distances underwater I will be content
"See? I'm really very skinny under water..."
Sorry, but there is no Shelley Winters-like character this time around.
Oruc
Reactionary
I only watched the first film because it Leslie Nielsen in it, Though he died very quickly what with being the captain an all.
Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
I saw a matinee of this today.
First off, the critics reviews lean negative, which I knew going into the movie. However, the reviews seem to criticize it for mainly two things: Not having much character development, and not being as "good" as the 1972 original. I like the critical hindsight of the latter statement, considering the critics roasted the 1972 film (which went on to break BO records). The first complaint is valid, if this were a serious drama. It's not.
It's a pure action/adventure movie from start to stop, and it works terrifically in that regard. The special effects are staggering, probably the most astonishing I've seen in a movie. The characters/plot/dialogue are all paper-thin, but they are just enough to do what the movie sets out to do--be a virtually mindless thrill ride. Personally, I think not giving the characters too much background is a plus. The film wants to move bang-bang-bang, it would only have to stop and explore the backgrounds. Petersen wisely knows that character ain't the selling point for the movie, so it's best to just do the minimum and get moving. And it works just fine.
I admit to missing the unapologetic 1970s cheese of the original. The cheese of the new version is decidedly less colorful. So I'd say the 1972 movie is safe in retaining its cult classic status, certainly. But the remake is simply fun and in many ways far more breathtaking. I'd recommend it for anyone interested in some mindless escapism with great effects. If you want an engrossing character drama, avoid at all costs.
First off, the critics reviews lean negative, which I knew going into the movie. However, the reviews seem to criticize it for mainly two things: Not having much character development, and not being as "good" as the 1972 original. I like the critical hindsight of the latter statement, considering the critics roasted the 1972 film (which went on to break BO records). The first complaint is valid, if this were a serious drama. It's not.
It's a pure action/adventure movie from start to stop, and it works terrifically in that regard. The special effects are staggering, probably the most astonishing I've seen in a movie. The characters/plot/dialogue are all paper-thin, but they are just enough to do what the movie sets out to do--be a virtually mindless thrill ride. Personally, I think not giving the characters too much background is a plus. The film wants to move bang-bang-bang, it would only have to stop and explore the backgrounds. Petersen wisely knows that character ain't the selling point for the movie, so it's best to just do the minimum and get moving. And it works just fine.
I admit to missing the unapologetic 1970s cheese of the original. The cheese of the new version is decidedly less colorful. So I'd say the 1972 movie is safe in retaining its cult classic status, certainly. But the remake is simply fun and in many ways far more breathtaking. I'd recommend it for anyone interested in some mindless escapism with great effects. If you want an engrossing character drama, avoid at all costs.
7ronin
海軍少佐
For an interesting review of this film, check out Roger Ebert's comments at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060511/REVIEWS/60508004/-1/email_headlines
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Some movies should NEVER be remade. This is one of them.
I predict it will flop.
A turd, regardless of how it is modernized, computerized and digitized, sadly..is still a turd.
I predict it will flop.
A turd, regardless of how it is modernized, computerized and digitized, sadly..is still a turd.
7ronin
海軍少佐
MobBoss said:
The Hollywood law of remakes states that a remake can never be better than the original.
What was Wolfgang Peterson thinking?
Your prediction has come true. Not only is it flopping, it's started to twitch.
Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
MobBoss said:
Because the material isn't that good to begin with, or the original was a masterpiece? I wouldn't agree with either of those notions, though.
Having read Gallico's novel, I think the 1972 film missed out on a lot of opportunities. I would like to have seen a remake that incorporated more of what he wrote. Note that this new film certainly doesn't do that--in fact, there isn't a semblance of the book in it.
I predict a middle-range box office take. It earned a respectable $2053 per screen average Friday. And one has to admit that the trailers for the movie are top-notch. They certainly make the movie look much better than it is.
The biggest problem with the movie is that, based on the 1972 film, people will think this is a disaster epic. It categorically is not--it's an action film. And as an action film, it works well. It's certainly better than most action fare. What it isn't is a melodrama, which the original was. Some will find that tremendously disappointing. My philosophy is that it "is what it is," and on its own merits it's simply 99 minutes of escapist thrills.
Honestly looks like crap. I should become a Hollywood producer as it's obvious the ones there now can think of little else to do but remake movies that really have no business being remade. The original one wasn't that great, but it wasn't that bad and it had a much better cast.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I am preety sure there was some sort of remake ... or at least the story was copied in a bad movie or smthing ...
I don't remember the name though, i wasn't impressed by it ... hope this thing turns out better.
I don't remember the name though, i wasn't impressed by it ... hope this thing turns out better.
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
Hmm, having seen the trailer now I'm not so keen. I may just wait until DVD.
7ronin
海軍少佐
Kan' Sharuminar said:
I don't know what they charge for admission to the cinema in Scotland but down here it keeps getting more and more expensive every year. At our local theater it is now $9.50. I used to go to all the movies; now I just look for the best of the best.
Serutan
Eatibus Anythingibus
7ronin said:
Nothing special, until the "Ocean Liner!" part
. Thatmade it worth the read.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
As is usually the case, I'm guessing the first will be best.
Every commercial I see for it, I mutter to myself "What a cheap knock-off of the Posiedon Adventure"...
Every commercial I see for it, I mutter to myself "What a cheap knock-off of the Posiedon Adventure"...
Similar threads
