MovieChat Forums > The Lost Prince (2004) Discussion > Didn't really enjoy that

Didn't really enjoy that

posted 17 years ago by svensk-fiolspel
29 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only person out there who thinks this movies is really over-rated and has ultimately no point?

Without wanting to boast or anything, I'm really not into insipid or superficial movies, but this seems to me like an attempt to film something that will basically say "Look at me, I'm a genius. Because my film deals with "taboo" subjects like epilepsy, it means it's great"

I don't mean to offend all the fans, I mean, I am touched by the story, and yes, it's really sad for all the autistic persons in the world, but the plot is just too empty to make a 3 hour long movie out of it. Basically, it's the story of an autistic prince who is confined to a cottage by his family. It can be summed up in only one sentence.

Frankly, watching it, I really felt Stephen Poliakoff just botched a few scenes from Johnny's life together, and then, from lack of anything interesting happening, decided to throw in bits of the history of England at the time. The only bits I enjoyed were the ones where they were actually talking about the war and the Romanovs. Not that there were not some nice scenes with Johnny, but they all were so long, so repetitive, and so altogethers uninteresting, that it was a pain just to actually finish the movie.

So, am I the only person on internet who disliked this movie, among a crowd of plenty of persons who seem to think it perfect?

[–] ksorensen 17 years ago

I agree with pretty much all your comments. I was bored. I appreciate what they were trying to do (I believe), but there just wasn't enough there to make a 3 hour movie.

[–] mt-kailash-1 17 years ago

Poliakoff's stuff scores highly in the production design department but often the script and story are waffling nonsense.
So the English royals had a mentally deficient child.
Given all their inbreeding I'm surprised there aren't many more.
There is no story here, just endless images of opulent living set in a time when most of the population endured subsistence level living conditions.

This is self indulgent trash.

[–] svensk-fiolspel 17 years ago

Thank you!
Good God, nobody replied to my comment for so long that I actually started believing everyone liked this movie.

[–] fortean2 17 years ago

"Poliakoff's stuff scores highly in the production design department but often the script and story are waffling nonsense"

I think that 'often' is the wrong word, I'd replace it with 'sometimes'. Exceptions are, for example, the superlative 'Shooting the Past' and 'Perfect Strangers'. I did though find The Lost Prince to be a real yawn-fest though.

[–] tropical_dream_22 17 years ago

I have no idea what you people are talking about. I thought it was a superb, touching, and delightful film, and not in the least boring. I don't think a movie needs to have a lot of action to be good; if the plot is rich enough, it can stand alone, and I think that's exactly what The Lost Prince did.

And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. ~ Anne Boleyn

[–] bryanmillsfist 10 years ago

You completely missed the point. The point is that no matter what your station in life you still are a human. All that opulence you noted could not save Johnny anymore than it could save Prince Albert from typhoid or commoners from the same diseases.

You should think more, rant less.

[–] sophie_lou21 16 years ago

Well, I personally thought it was a wonderful film I will never forget and the entire thing moved me to tears. The acting was very good and the story was so simple that it was enjoyable. When you do a history like that you can't expect great action scenes. Your talking about the life of a young Prince who very few people realise existed. I knew about him, that's why I watched the film, but others didn't. I thought the whole thing was quite touching.

-

Shooting Stars [HMC Site] - http://sophie-lou.tripod.com/

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LadyAnne608 16 years ago

i cried to death.

Joy Division- "She's Lost Control"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QVc29bYIvCM

[–] Regina_Giddens 16 years ago

I thought it was highly enjoyable! Not 'deep' because it dealt with 'issues,' I didn't look it at that way, just a good well written piece of cinema that was entertaining, especially since its set in a period i'm interested in.

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

It was rich in style, history, story, and refined human emotions. It brought together a lot of the causes and factors of the war and its origins that no other film or book has, or has even mentioned. It was a fantastic period piece, and not only that, it was true.

If you were expecting it to be solely about John, I'm sorry if it disappointed you. But from the sound of it, you're complaining that it was about John, or that it was even made in the first place. In which case, I'd say, why did you watch it? Turn it off if you don't like the premise or subject matter.

John's story was an excellent device to create a film that was not only about this unknown prince and his place in the royal family, but also to show the history of that fascinating period in the history of the entire world through his eyes. I can't really think of any other movie that does that, or that achieves anything like that so well.

. . . . . . . .

[–] sidz79 16 years ago

There is no story here, just endless images of opulent living set in a time when most of the population endured subsistence level living conditions.

This is self indulgent trash.

I disagree... considering it was a true story, the opulent lifestyle didn't seem to bother me at all !
And no story?? Would it have been better if this was a story about a "poor" epileptic boy? Just bcoz they were royals doesn't make the story any less emotional or moving!

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

Note to sidz: Please click "reply" on the correct post. That way, the thread reads properly, and the correct person gets the e-mail notification of your reply (see "Notifications" in your profile).

. . . . . . . .

[–] sidz79 16 years ago

Oh... sorry about that !

[–] randommovies2002 11 years ago

I can't really think of any other movie that does that, or that achieves anything like that so well.

Forest Gump. I kept thinking about Forest Gump the entire time. Both films use a main character with special needs, through whom the film examines a period of history by placing the main character as a present observer -- although, in actuality, the observer wasn't really present at all the events depicted.

Forest Gump is a fictional character placed in real events; Prince John was a real person, but wasn't really present at the events he was depicted observing (according to the behind the scenes featurette on the DVD).

[–] angelofvic 11 years ago

Forest Gump is too bloated and ridiculous and self-indulgent and too self-consciously unreal to be taken seriously, in my opinion. It has a few good moments but it's definitely not history, whereas The Lost Prince is.

.

[–] randommovies2002 11 years ago

I don't disagree with yoiu, however, that doesn't negate the similarities between the two films.

[–] angelofvic 11 years ago

I disagree. Forest Gump didn't show us history, it showed us "I need to pee" and "Bubba Gump's Shrimp". If you think those sorts of things are history, then we disagree.
.

[–] randommovies2002 11 years ago

Here we go. Absolutely NO HISTORY at all in the film, just goofy moments of Forest Gump running and saying goofy things to historical characters. Whatever.

There are similarities between the films regardless of the semantics you want to employ. Of course I think TLP is a better film, but whatever.

[–] angelofvic 11 years ago

It did not accomplish what I mentioned in my post up to (nor was it even meant to). If you think it did then we are never going to agree on that. Done with this conversation.
.

[–] randommovies2002 11 years ago

"If you think it did"

LOL, I already said I didn't disagree with your criticisms of Forest Gump. YOU want to keep insisting that I think Forest Gump is some superior historical film.

Like I said, whatever.

[–] randommovies2002 11 years ago

You know, it's really too bad that you felt you needed to add such rude and insulting comment at the end of your second response: If you think those sorts of things are history, then we disagree.

Really. As if anyone would think those things are history.

I've enjoyed our previous discussions over the years, and particularity your enthusiasm for Edward the King after I suggested it to you. It's too bad you had to fire back at me in this thread with such rudeness and what comes off as deliberate twisting of my words.

[–] Indigo_chakra 16 years ago

I don't mean to offend all the fans, I mean, I am touched by the story, and yes, it's really sad for all the autistic persons in the world, but the plot is just too empty to make a 3 hour long movie out of it. Basically, it's the story of an autistic prince who is confined to a cottage by his family. It can be summed up in only one sentence.

Everyone I know that has seen this film found it harder for the epileptic people in the world, and their families and friends. After all that is what he died from, not from autism. 99% of people in the world are thought to have at least one seizure in their life whether or not it is in their sleep or when they are awake, it is a very scary medical condition to deal with. A family member of mine has a PHD from Oxford and still when people see him having seizures they think he must be autistic, for some reason a lot of people think that seizures are not something everyone can have.
As far as I understood it, it was because of his epilepsy, not his autism that he was hidden away to begin with.

"It isn't what faith you practice, but how you practice your faith." - A.C.Y.

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

You've missed the point of the film. The point of the film was to show the causes of WWI as seen through the eyes of a young boy. That's hardly an empty plot. Thousands of volumes have been written about the causes of WWI, and still, few people understand it. This film does and excellent job of showing a lot of great historical information.

(BTW, seizures are not a symptom of autism; autistic people do not have seizures.)
. . . . . . . .

[–] Canuck21 11 years ago

The plot is too empty?!? I really don't know what you were expecting. I did not get bored at all and enjoyed every second of this mini-series. The content was full of historical events seen through the eyes of a young autistic boy. Seriously, what more do you want?

[–] ctg2005 11 years ago

This movie is pure poetry. Poliakoff has a touch that you don't find often in movie directors. He provides a new way to look at the world, a way that is delicate, pure and unspoiled.It'a shame you can't grasp it.

[–] flowwalker 11 years ago

Per ctg2005: "This movie is pure poetry. Poliakoff has a touch that you don't find often in movie directors. He provides a new way to look at the world, a way that is delicate, pure and unspoiled."

I have yet to see the movie -- just added it to my Netflix queque -- but from what I have seen of Poliakoff's work, I suspect you are right. AND, I suspect that people without a particular sensibility may not perceive the poetry. Also -- I suspect that Poliakoff had two purposes served by the choice of Johnny as the centerpiece of the movie: to make people aware of the insight of those whose point of view is altered and sometimes particularly perceptive, and to serve as a window from which to unfold the history of Johnny's moment.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bthr 11 years ago

if you looked for some explosions or something deep and meaningful, you are at the wrong place.
this movie is a biography, it tells the life of a character (plus scenes for dramatization)

i agree that 3 hours is way too much and many scenes were there as fillers but saying it was boring is just ridiculous.
the movie still is great and tells the story very well.

most movies you can sum up in few sentences but doing that will just skip all the details.