Lord Attenborough is a film legend, but this film stinks, let's be honest. If anyone else had directed this, the press's critical gloves would really be off by now. The British film industry will close ranks because it's a British film, and to be blunt Lord Attenborough is 84, so it might be his last.
shareAmen to that. I saw this movie at Toronto film fest with a friend--excited to something by such pros as Attenborough, Christopher Plummer, and Shirley Maclaine. The showing started badly--projector problems. The young actor who played the doomed hero jumped up to entertain the crowd while they worked on the issue. Nice enough kid, took some questions. Said attenborough was a dream etc. but that he (the kid) really didn't "need" direction because he's pretty good at knowing when he was good or bad. He seemed more intereted in discussing how he had to bleach his hair for the part than in any intrinsic value in the role/film.
When the movie began, we almost died laughing: If this kid thought he was being "good" here he is delusional. Even more shocking, teen throb Mischa Barton was just heinous. Wooden is the kindest applicable term.
Christopher Plummer was notable mostly by his frighteningly over-bleached, feral-looking teeth. they were a distraction. MacLaine was okay, and neve cambpell not bad but this movie is just awful. I was actually hoping it might get released in the UK because it's such a howler it's almost worth seeing again. then again, not.
I'm not usually this brutal--it's just a movie--but this is a special case because it's clear that significant money was spent and talent wasted on this thing.
I think I like you. I have been trying to tell people the same thing "This movie stinks", so people won't waste their money on it, but all I get is guff from half-witted O.C fans, who "think" that just because Mischa is in it, it must be the greatest film ever. I feel sorry for Christopher Plummer, and Lord Attenborough, who are legends, and who got involved in this mess.
share[deleted]
Why do you feel you need to stick your nose into other peoples' viewing? Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean anything, in the scheme of things, so what makes you think your opinion is more important than anyone else's?
And before you make up what passes for a mind, I am not an MB fan, and I've never watched the OC, whatever that is.
Well, you stuck your nose in here for starters(kettle calling the pot black). Secondly this film stank, and flopped big time at the cinema, so it's not just my opinion. Thirdly where did I say my opinion was more important than anyone else's? And lastly, I take it you were too lazy to look up the O.C then? or just defensive because having watched the show it might invalidate what you wasted your time in posting here?
shareYou're missing the point, which is that for someone - anyone - to come onto a film forum and tell other people not to waste their money is really a bit stupid. Do you really imagine people are going to think 'lk_ie says it stinks and not to waste my money, so I won't see it'? I would ignore a comment like that from a professional critic, let alone someone whose objectivity is unknown.
The film didn't get much exposure in terms of theatrical run or advertising, and it's not even listed in BoxOfficeMojo. Nonetheless it has an average rating, albeit from a statistically insignificant base, of 7.0 which is pretty good going.
I think part of the problem is that the film will appeal much more to older viewers and that's the beginning and end of it. It is old-fashioned and the mainstream cinema-going audience doesn't want that.
Having said that, and I quite liked the film, with all its faults, I wouldn't dream of telling people that they should rush out and buy the DVD or whatever. I don't have such a big head that I think my opinion is definitive.
As to the OC no, I didn't look it up. It has nothing whatsoever to do with laziness, but there have only been three or four American TV series which I have enjoyed, and I no longer have a TV because I got sick of all the dung being shown on it. As nobody among my friends has ever mentioned the series I would be wasting my time even to download it. Not that that's legal, of course ...
One other thing: it's the pot calling the kettle black, not the other way around.
I have to say that a movie like this is not my cup of tea, in the first place. I saw the movie for Neve Campbell, and as others on this board have said, and I concur, she did quite well with the little she had. Dunno if she was better that Pete Postlethwaite, but close.
That said, I am not so sure this film is such a turkey, but is predictable and mundane than anything else. If you're of a mind for this kind of film, it isn't a waste of time or money, IMHO. For me, though, it's just "meh." I did find parts boring (unfortunately, the flashback parts with Mischa and the others), and some parts absolutely riveting. I could have lived without Shirley MacLaine and you get the feeling she could have lived without it as well.
I agree that this is very much for the older audience and some people will absolutely love it for its utterly romantic view of the WW2 era.
It's utterly romantic and stereotypical view of the WW2 era! All the 40s music was so generic...Glenn Miller? I would have liked to see a bit more of Belfast in the 40s to be honest. At the time the film was shot, Belfast hadn't changed radically and could have easily been dressed - see Mickybo and Me for examples of the early 50s. I don't even know why they bothered to fly everyone over here when the streets they used could have been found anywhere...or even recreated on a set for all you saw of them. And the flyover shot as the plane was about to crash? Didn't even look like Northern Ireland, let alone Belfast's coastline! Total CGI.
And let's not be so hard on Mischa, ALL the Canadian actors were incredibly wooden! We have all seen much better performances by Gregory Smith for example.