|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 8, 2021 15:45:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Sept 8, 2021 15:50:34 GMT
1956.
2004 was a pathetic vanity project for Jackie Chan. Just awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Sept 8, 2021 15:56:32 GMT
1956
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 8, 2021 15:56:32 GMT
(1956) 7.5/10
(2004) 4/10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 8, 2021 16:36:35 GMT
I think both are bad movies. The original is boring and overlong and the remake is really dumb and lazy. The former has some great technical qualities to it though and at least put in the effort.
1956 - 4.5/10
2004 - 3.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 8, 2021 17:56:41 GMT
The 1956 film was a lavish production with a who's who of ensemble casting. It's quite long, and didn't deserve the win for Best Picture that year over films like Giant. I haven't seen the 2004 film in years. All I remember it loosely adapts the novel (same as the 1956 film), and throws in typical Jackie Chan action. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a fun cameo in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Sept 12, 2021 15:25:20 GMT
56 at least sticks more or less to the plot of the book, though it is padded out too much, all that tiresome European sequence, , and the ending is ridiculously prolonged. It could have done with being at least half an hour shorter. But the 2004 one is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Sept 12, 2021 21:20:01 GMT
Anyone recall the 1989 TV miniseries? Starred Pierce Bronsan, Eric Idle, Julia Nickson, Peter Ustinov with Lee Remick, Christopher Lee, Patrick Macnee, Simon Ward, Jill St. John, Robert Wagner, Roddy MacDowall, and Robert Morley.
|
|
