Poseidon

[Freaky Tiki]

Has anyone else seen the movie? What are your thoughts?

Personally, I enjoyed the movie because I knew what I was going to get when I saw it. There are really no deep themes, no strong character attachment. But there is plenty of action, and pretty good special effects.

If you're looking for a good story or meaningful messages, its not really the right movie. But if you're willing to sit back and enjoy the ride, then its a great movie.

The only thing that kind of annoyed me, was that there really was no closure as far at the characters are concerned. I would have liked to have at least a little insight as to what happened after the whole thing. Oh Well.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Has anyone else seen the movie? What are your thoughts?

Personally, I enjoyed the movie because I knew what I was going to get when I saw it. There are really no deep themes, no strong character attachment. But there is plenty of action, and pretty good special effects.

If you're looking for a good story or meaningful messages, its not really the right movie. But if you're willing to sit back and enjoy the ride, then its a great movie.Except that that makes it the polar opposite of the original. The original is actually a pretty intricate and well developed morality play. The character development is strong and engaging. The people are believable and you care what happens to them.

You're the second person I've heard describe it like this, and it just confirms my lack of need to see it.

Of course, my distaste for the slew of remakes that are being vomitted out of Hollywood already pretty much made my decission for me. As well as the fact that I've seen the original so many times that I really don't need to see it in any form ever again.

[scaeagles]

The people are believable and you care what happens to them.

Yeah....but the acting, at least in my mind, almost makes the whole movie comical. Near the end when Ernest Borgnine is yelling at Gene Hackman because....crud...what's her name?.....falls to her doom, it is really, really pathetic.

Not that I'm planning on seeing the new one. I too am sick of remakes. I'm just not a huge fan of the original, even though it was pretty ground breaking at the time (in terms of action flicks).

[Snowflake]

Yeah....but the acting, at least in my mind, almost makes the whole movie comical. Near the end when Ernest Borgnine is yelling at Gene Hackman because....crud...what's her name?.....falls to her doom, it is really, really pathetic.

Not that I'm planning on seeing the new one. I too am sick of remakes. I'm just not a huge fan of the original, even though it was pretty ground breaking at the time (in terms of action flicks).


LINDA!
MY LIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAA AAAAAAA

[Snowflake]

Except that that makes it the polar opposite of the original. The original is actually a pretty intricate and well developed morality play. The character development is strong and engaging. The people are believable and you care what happens to them.

You're the second person I've heard describe it like this, and it just confirms my lack of need to see it.

Of course, my distaste for the slew of remakes that are being vomitted out of Hollywood already pretty much made my decission for me. As well as the fact that I've seen the original so many times that I really don't need to see it in any form ever again.

I could not have expressed this better myself GD. Memories of my girlish crush on Kurt Russell notwithstanding, I won't darken the door of the multiplex for this one.

"Vomitted out of Hollywood" is a fabulous line. In the immortal words of Auntie Mame, "How VI-vid"

[Not Afraid]

I read about 1/3 of a really horrible review the other day, dirming up my decision to save this for when I'm REALLY bored and can't sleep.

I actually saw Starsky and Hutch that way and almost enjoyed it.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yeah, when Linda the hooker dies, that's totally funny. :D

I'm guessing there's no bad 70's hair and fashion in this version.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I really liked ALL the characters and ALL the acting in the original. Borgnine's storyline with the cop who fell for the ex-prostitute is a fantastic addition to the movie. There's plenty of character development set aside for them before the flip and I really felt for him when she died.

My dad, who loves action shlock and loves the original, hated this remake.

[Alex]

I did see this last Friday when I found myself near a theater with time to kill.

As a straight up action-suspense movie it was ok. Though there was nothing in the movie to give you any reason at all to care who died and who didn't. Though it follows the Hollywood-appropriate formula (one asshole, all minorities, and a self-sacrificing alpha).

The one part I liked is a complete spoiler, so:

Kurt Russell does what may be the most accurate drowning scene ever.

[Freaky Tiki]

As a straight up action-suspense movie it was ok. Though there was nothing in the movie to give you any reason at all to care who died and who didn't. Though it follows the Hollywood-appropriate formula (one asshole, all minorities, and a self-sacrificing alpha).

That's the mindset you have to have if your going to see it.

Normally, I like to have a decent plot, great character development and all that jazz. But for this movie I allowed myself to "dumb" my taste in movies down a bit, and it was much more enjoyable like that.

I knew a lot of it was bad, and corny but I accepted it and moved on. Most movies you absorb to get the deep themes and plot lines. Poseidon, you just watch without searching into it.

[JWBear]

I don't care none for that sissy plot stuff. I just wants to see **** blowed up!

[innerSpaceman]

I did not hate this movie. I could have sworn I was going to, but I didn't.

Despite changing all the characters names and the particulars of their backstories, the movie stuck surprisingly close to the characters in the novel and the previous movie. And it stuck pretty close to events, adding in a few set pieces - which I mostly found worthwhile.

I was at first little perturbed at how few of the escaping group died, but the body count turns out to be just about the same as in the book and the Irwin Allen film ... just switched around a bit (for instance, this movie's Ernest Borgine dies while its Gene Hackman lives).

I did find it bothersome (but hardly unexpected) that the cop-out factor vis-a-vis character deaths is more potent in 2006 than it was in 1972. In the novel, the little boy simply disappears and goes down with the ship. The original film would have none of that. The remake not only saves the kid, but also spares both the hero's life (trading his for the Ernest Borgnine character) and the "Shelly Winters" character (trading that one for the whiny, freaked out girl who obviously deserves to die anyway).


Other than that, a fine actioner ... with some great over-the-top-of-its-predecessor moments (the new version of the 'Roddy McDowall' death being of particular note).

Alas, all the cool set pieces and neat effects in the world cannot make up for the camp factor achievable in the early 70's or the lack of a memorable Johnny Williams score.

Unlike the Irwin Allen movie, this one is not going down as one of history's cult faves. But I found it perfectly serviceable. Ultimately, though, not enough of a reason to try your hand at remaking a classic.

* * * * * ***

Then ... I went and rewatched the original.

I realized the main problem with this remake is there are no characters that the audience particularly warms to. And, even if there were ... this version doesn't kill any of them or their loved ones, so that the audience experiences grief and sadness and, ahem, drama.

Shelly Winters died, Gene Hackman died, Jack Albertson mourned the loss of his wife, Ernest Borgnine mourned the loss of his. Perhaps audiences today are victims of their own sophisitication in that movies will no longer attempt such melodrama (LINDAAAAA!) ... but the Poseidon remake ultimately fell flat - despite all the cool action - because there were no appealing human characters .... and no true jeopardy is dramaticized if death does not come to some of the appealing human characters.


In this one, they killed off Kurl Russell. Despite being Kurt Russell, I daresay he was not a character anyone in the audience warmed to. Neither did anyone particularly emphathize with the grief of his daughter, Emma Rostrom. And certainly no one cared when the whiny stowabay bitch died.

Compare with the death of Shelly Winters, and the grief expressed by Hackman and Jack Albertson, or the death of Stella Stevens and the grief of Ernest Borgnine, or the sacrificial-lamb death of Gene Hackman. Hokey as it may have been ... the original Poseidon Adventure was far more saavy as to what makes a good movie.

:coffee:

[Gemini Cricket]

What gets my goat sometimes is when someone (and I don't mean anyone here) says that because it's an action film that you shouldn't expect it to be phenominal. I think it can be both. A film can be an action flick and still be interesting, with compelling characters and a point. It hasn't happened recently, but I do believe that it is possible.

A good example of this is the two 'Navarone' movies. 'The Guns of Navarone' is a fine action military film. 'Force 10 From Navarone' is horrid. The first one had an interesting plot, characters you liked and chilling messages here and there. The second one lacked everything.

(Tangent: It's the same irritation I feel when someone says, don't pick on that Disney film it's for kids. Wrong. It is possible to make a film for kids and adults to enjoy.)

With that rant out there in the open, I must admit that I didn't see 'Poseidon' and don't plan to. I have the original on DVD and watch it to laugh at.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

GC...couldn't agree more. There are pleanty of examples that prove that "action" and "quailty storytelling/character development" are not mutually exclusive. So why should I just be happy that the action is good when it could be so much more?

[Not Afraid]

There's got to be a morning after.......

[scaeagles]

I think the incredible film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings trilogy raised the standard for action/adventure movies with other factors such as character development and characters you care about to a standard that that may be too high to achieve ever again.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think the incredible film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings trilogy raised the standard for action/adventure movies with other factors such as character development and characters you care about to a standard that that may be too high to achieve ever again.
Eh, not really. While they were certainly fantastic movies, with good character development, they were far from perfect. Legolas and Gimli come to mind. Totally glossed over that. Which makes the original Poseidon Adventure that much more impressive. 3 extra-long movies, and Peter Jackson failed to do the side characters justice. Whereas in PA, a standard length single movie, every character got the treatment they deserved.

[Alex]

When were these films released? I saw an incredible adaptation of Fellowship of the Rings but I'm still waiting for quality adaptations of the other books.

[scaeagles]

Well, I am no movie critic, but I disagreewith you GD about the character development of the side characters. Not to derail, just bringing up what I tink are the best "action" movies that don't ignore character aspects.

[Not Afraid]

Not to derail, just bringing up what I tink are the best "action" movies that don't ignore character aspects.

I TINK you're on to something.;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, I am no movie critic, but I disagreewith you GD about the character development of the side characters. Not to derail, just bringing up what I tink are the best "action" movies that don't ignore character aspects.
Really? Who are Legolas and Gimli? What's their motivation for joining the Fellowship? What was their life like before they joined? What more do we know about them other than "They're an elf and dwarf who get along"? And no fair answering with info from the books.

[Alex]

My problem with the later two movies is that they don't really spend much time on character development but rather just present the characters and rely on familiarity with the books to fill in the characterization (or the promise of 23-hour extended editions on DVD).

Now, while I love it when an action movie develops characters and motivations and I'll always have a better opinion for it I also don't necessarily require it any more than I dock a character-drama for not having a quality car chase.

[scaeagles]

Sigh. I just offered opinion. I even said it wasn't a very movie-critic-like -educated opinion. Considering the immense number of side characters in these movies, I think an amazing job was done.

I was never a fanatic for the books, though I enjoyed them when reading them in jr. high. I know many have read them over and over and are certainly more educated on them than I.

[scaeagles]

I TINK you're on to something.;)

NA mocks a typo?????

[Not Afraid]

Hey, I'm allowed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Sigh. I just offered opinion. I even said it wasn't a very movie-critic-like -educated opinion. Considering the immense number of side characters in these movies, I think an amazing job was done.

I was never a fanatic for the books, though I enjoyed them when reading them in jr. high. I know many have read them over and over and are certainly more educated on them than I. Not attacking, just discussing. This is a disccion board, right?

I give action movies far less leeway regarding character development if they insist on throwing an ensemble at me. If you're gonna go through the trouble of making me sit through a dozen different characters' dialogs and make me have to remember their names, they'd better be interesting and not some shallow cliche.

Atlantis is a good example. I really would have enjoyed the movie, with the same plot and action, if I didn't have to deal with every annoying sidekick cliche under the sun in the meantime.

[Alex]

Sorry, for critics (and people like me), part of the reason I love movies is the desire to discuss them. That is another way critics differ from the "average movie-goer" in that I think the average person's desire to think about a movie doesn't extend much farther than "thumbs up/thumbs down."

[scaeagles]

Not attacking, just discussing. This is a disccion board, right?

Most certainly.

As far as the motivation, looking at the movies alone without bringing the books into it (though it was been well over 20 years since I read them and wouldn't remember anyway and a few years since I watched the first), it seems to me that they were at the original meeting where the fellowship was established as representatives of their particular...race? It was an issue of pride to Gimli to not be left out of the quest, and an issue of duty and loyalty to Aragorn for Legolas.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It was an issue of pride to Gimli to not be left out of the quest, and an issue of duty and loyalty to Aragorn for Legolas.But that's as far as it went. Where does that loyalty for Aragorn, a human, come from? What did Gimli leave behind when he went? Nevermind that from that point on, the two of them became nothing but comic relief.

[scaeagles]

But that's as far as it went.

How far do you take things like that, though? Why was Aragorn in love with Arwen and vice versa? What was the history of their relationship? When did Sam and Frodo first meet and why is Sam so loyal to Frodo in the face of their conflict over Smeigel? Etc.

Of course there are things we aren't told and aren't present. When you have limited constraints in terms of time in a movie (and they were pretty long already), how can you address all such issues?

I don't think you can. So you do your best to move the main characters along. Frodo and the burden of the ring and the final overwhelming of him by its power when he refused to destroy it at the end. Aragorn accepting who he was. Etc.

I have no vast knowledge of movies, but I can't think of another in the action genre that did as good of a job, except perhaps the original Star Wars.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Nevermind that from that point on, the two of them became nothing but comic relief.Well, at least Legolas provided some nice eye-candy. ;)

[Not Afraid]

Well, at least Legolas provided some nice eye-candy. ;)

Yes, tres yummy. But, I do think that Legolas is the son of Spock.

[JWBear]

There's got to be a morning after.......
...If we can hold on through the night...

[JWBear]

Yes, tres yummy. But, I do think that Legolas is the son of Spock.
Orlando Bloom as Young Spock???? Hmmm....

[innerSpaceman]

Um, do I have go and change the title of this thread?



And, like Alex, I'm still awaiting the decent adaptations of The Two Towers and The Return of the King to go with the fabulous film version of The Fellowship of the Ring.


But let's just assume characters simply cannot be as fleshed out in a movie as in a novel. Would the readers of the Poseidon Adventure novel agree that all the characters were well-represented in the original movie?

I haven't read the novel in over 35 years, but my impression - - as an impressionable 12 year old - - was that the movie did a damn good job of conveying everything that needed to be conveyed about those characters. This may be easier to achieve when dealing with action - in either book or movie form - that takes place over a mere few hours.

[mistyisjafo]

I actually watched the original on TV the other day. I laughed, I cried and I cheered for the over acting, the old but classic special effects and for Gene Hackman who steals the show. Forget the new movie, watch the original.