|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 19, 2017 22:24:50 GMT
Recently saw the 1995 version.
I liked it. It paid enough tribute to the earlier versions, while being enough of its own animal.
Belushi played it much like Bogie. And that was good. Broderick Crawford, in the wild west version usually titled LAST OF THE COMANCHES, gave it a more nineteenth century impersonal characterization. Crawford was more G Man, but that fit for the era. Bogie and Belushi were more casual guys caring for their companions.
The rest of the cast is hard to gauge. It looked like they were heavily directed and on a schedule. The scenery wasn't as natural looking, for whatever reason. Sometimes, it takes more than Nature to make things look natural on screen. The characters looked more like they were on a stage than in any other version.
Still, I had no problem with the acting, because it looked like they were all on the same page, and the director dictated the motions.
Many purists will go ahead and state that it's all just more of THE LOST PATROL, which spawned perhaps thousands of such films. I'll just put the Sahara ones in a special beer bucket inside the giant vat.
I'd say it was a good day for Jim Belushi. John probably has a keg party in Heaven each time he sees it.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 19, 2017 23:59:35 GMT
Never saw either version, just the 1943 original which is one of my favorite Bogart films.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Dec 20, 2017 0:19:52 GMT
The Belushi version is very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 20, 2017 17:51:36 GMT
It's surprisingly good, isn't it? I guess a lot of it is the story, but Belushi is competent and as you said the acting overall isn't bad by any measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Dec 20, 2017 19:16:08 GMT
 The original 1937 version Тринадцать (The Thirteen), though it takes place in the Asian wastelands.  The story was also remade as a western 1953, Last of the Comanches
|
|