MovieChat Forums > Die Schatzinsel (2007) Discussion > It could have been good, if....

It could have been good, if....

posted 16 years ago by GMTMaster
12 replies | jump to latest

I don't get it. It appears the writer changed everything about the original so he could ad his nonsense to a truly great story. 1. He ads a Woman, Sheila, supposedly for more romance. We have to see her tits quiet a few times in the film to, for no apparent story reason, as to show tits... But the girl isn't so bad, it is what Thurn did with the other characters. 2. Dr. Livesey. What is he? First he stalls after Jims Mother - not a very noble thing to do! On the ship, he is a plain moron, always asking about the treasure map, and always accepting Jims flimsy excuses why the damn map isn't there, and on the Island, Livesey turns out of nowhere into a greedy monster, killing a wounded pirate with mercury and not attending to a wounded English servant. Ben Gunn is suddenly a freak from the series "Lost". Jim looses his virginity to a hocker in Bristol, while Shila, his later love interest, is watching. (I AM SERIOUS) Smollett and Trelawney don't seem to play any vital part in the story. Worst of all, this is not a family film, where you could have fun watching it with your kids. For young children this is too violent. Best things are said about MOretti playing Silver and nice locations and props. But this film will vanish in the TV archives of the network that produced it.

[–] lostinaction 16 years ago

Correct they ruined the good old Story. For what reason? They should have done a funny colourful movie with a funny Christian Tramitz (normally he isn't so boring as in this movie). Tobias Moretti with wide open eyes (why?) could have been a better pirate with good cynical jokes. Etc... I'm a little bit dissapointed it could have been better if ..... there was another director and other scriptwriter and an other producer responsible for this movie.

[–] enigma-e 16 years ago

You haven't exactly understood the OP's point, did you? The original story in itself would have made for an excellent movie. No need to add "funny" storylines or "cynical jokes".

If only they had stuck to Robert Louis Stevenson's book, it would have been an excellent movie. The 1966 miniseries proves that beyond any doubt. They had a ridiculously small budget then, but still managed to make a great movie from it, which is legendary up to this day for being the truest adaptation of the book.

[–] cengelm 16 years ago

But that's only your opinion. The 1966 wasn't particularly well done. Only Ivor Dean as LJS was a highlight. The rest was hurt by very low production values and weak acting. Liking it is nostalgic.

But overall I agree that this installment has its own flaws.

[–] enigma-e 16 years ago

But that's only your opinion.

Compare an IMDb rating of this piece (5.4) with a rating of the 1966 movie (7.9). Only MY opinion, my sternpost!

[–] cengelm 16 years ago

Those few who undergo the pain to watch it usually like it. It requieres some effort to to watch the old version. It's not the only old crap with high ratings.

117 votes vs. 108 votes and it's a pretty short time since its release.

[–] enigma-e 16 years ago

What was more pain to watch, I wonder: The better rated 1966 version (39 % rated 10), or the terrible 2007 version, where most people rated 1 (in words: ONE!)?

Which one do you think is more pain to watch?

[–] varialectio 16 years ago

Wow, this is disappointing to know. :( I am an American who loves foriegn cinema and is a huge Andre Hennicke fan, so I was very eager to know how he does in this.

How big is his part as Ben Gunn and how much was the character changed from the book? I had the feeling that they would probably make Ben more sinister, so I was picturing Hennicke as basically playing him like a human version of Gollum. (Which is not necessarily a bad mental image, if you get the drift.)

What exactly does he do here, and does he get killed? (Ben Gunn, not Hennicke, who I am sure is alive and well.)

[–] AccessCardRequired 16 years ago

Hennicke is pretty amazing in his portrail of Ben Gunn. One has to like the new charackter though. He is a tough loner out for revenge.

[–] varialectio 16 years ago

YES! Go Andre! :)

Is Gunn still friendly to Jim in this version, or is he more out for himself and nobody else?

[–] tika5 16 years ago

you nailed it: he DOES INDEED portray Ben Gunn like a kind of Gollum, he even talks sort of Lord of the Ring-ish. But the sound recording was so bad, you can hardly make out what he says exactly. he is not particularly friendly to Jim....there's so little time in the entire "movie", everything's so so rushed, there's hardly time to develop any characters.

[–] varialectio 16 years ago

Does he die at the end? Since I live in America, I can hardly watch any Andre Hennicke films at all, but I'm tired of seeing him die at the end of the ones I have watched...

[–] tika5 16 years ago

*SPOILER*..obviously...

no, he doesn't die. Pretty much the last shot is him shooting an arrow at Black Dog, who had been left ashore previously. if I remember correctly. but he def does not die.