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

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:

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.
:)

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?

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.

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.

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.

I TINK you're on to something.;)