sheydari
Juni 2004 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen5
Bewertung von sheydari
The idea of artifacts with special powers had already been put into a successful film - Syfy brilliant miniseries "The Lost Room" in 2006. Fans like myself were thrilled to hear that a new series -warehouse 13- would pick up the idea and develop it into a longer show. and I have been following warehouse 13 since then.
The series, sadly, disappointed me though. The story has so much potential. It could have been a fascinating show, better than law and order, the x-files, or CSI. However it was done so lamely that Canada's CityTV dropped it in the second season, and no one even noticed! The first problem is the cast. While the cast of the Lost Room were solid, believable and fully in character, the cast of warehouse 13 are just out of place. Their act is almost comic. It is so hard to take Myka, Pete, Artie and Claudia seriously because they look and act nowhere like what their roles are.
The show's poor character development doesn't help either. All characters have too much comical traits to be taken seriously. And they all are so one-dimensional. This show was supposed to be about the fascinating world of strange historical artifacts with magic powers, and the writers have reduced it to ridiculous comic stories played by a group of circus clowns.
The background stories are not helpful. McPherson's story was the only relevant one, but the stories of Mrs. Fredric, Claudia and H.G. Wells just distract the audience.
I still watch warehouse 13; just because I loved "the Lost Room", and perhaps because there isn't much more to do on Friday nights (when it is aired in Canada). However I am so disappointed. Such a great story, so much potential, are wasted because of bad writing.
The series, sadly, disappointed me though. The story has so much potential. It could have been a fascinating show, better than law and order, the x-files, or CSI. However it was done so lamely that Canada's CityTV dropped it in the second season, and no one even noticed! The first problem is the cast. While the cast of the Lost Room were solid, believable and fully in character, the cast of warehouse 13 are just out of place. Their act is almost comic. It is so hard to take Myka, Pete, Artie and Claudia seriously because they look and act nowhere like what their roles are.
The show's poor character development doesn't help either. All characters have too much comical traits to be taken seriously. And they all are so one-dimensional. This show was supposed to be about the fascinating world of strange historical artifacts with magic powers, and the writers have reduced it to ridiculous comic stories played by a group of circus clowns.
The background stories are not helpful. McPherson's story was the only relevant one, but the stories of Mrs. Fredric, Claudia and H.G. Wells just distract the audience.
I still watch warehouse 13; just because I loved "the Lost Room", and perhaps because there isn't much more to do on Friday nights (when it is aired in Canada). However I am so disappointed. Such a great story, so much potential, are wasted because of bad writing.
Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is one of her books that was perfect for big screen. That's why early on we had Sidney Lumet's version in 1974 with Albert Finney as Poirot, and now the new episode with the ever magnificent David Suchet in that role.
Between the two versions, the 1974 film remained true to the original story - and it is still one of the best adaptations of Christie's work prior to the series with Suchet. Now those familiar with Christie's work know that her books are focused on the mystery that is to be solved and nothing else. There is no character development aside from Poirot himself, and every side story is either for comic relief or to distract you from an important clue. The 1974 film followed the same approach, with every turn and every incident only magnifying the mystery at hand. The 1974 film keeps you thrilled and curious, with a great end scene (common in all Christie's stories) where Poirot discovers the truth. And it ends there. No hidden philosophical message. No personal conflict. Just a mystery solved.
The new (2010) TV version seems, well, different. The story has been turned from a pure mystery into a moral judgement about justice, God and taking law into your own hand. The focus on Poirot's Catholicism (which does not appear in any Christie's book) and the question of whether he will tell the truth or not - something that in the original story is left to the train boss and passengers - makes it quite a different story from the original.
It would have been okay to have a different take on the murder on the orient express if the new story had been told with the same magnificence as the original story. Unfortunately this was not true. First of all, 1.5 hour is not sufficient to properly develop a moral story as the director wanted to say. Perhaps if it was a big screen movie and an hour longer, it might have turned better. Second, in developing the moral/religious line of the story, the director has taken out a great deal of focus and thrill of the mystery story. The end scenes, especially the reaction of the colonel to Poirot's discovery of truth, is in line with the moral message of the film but looks ridiculous to veteran Poirot fans, and so is Poirot's hesitation at the end on what to do. A deep scene, but uncharacteristic of Poirot.
Overall, seasoned Poirot fans will be disappointed as this film is not really Poirot or Christie. Not even a good mystery. Others who like a film about moral judgements may enjoy it.
I was also shocked to see how old Suchet looked in this movie. I am not sure how longer he plans to play Poirot but the way he looks is now perfect to play Poirot in "Curtain", his last case.
Between the two versions, the 1974 film remained true to the original story - and it is still one of the best adaptations of Christie's work prior to the series with Suchet. Now those familiar with Christie's work know that her books are focused on the mystery that is to be solved and nothing else. There is no character development aside from Poirot himself, and every side story is either for comic relief or to distract you from an important clue. The 1974 film followed the same approach, with every turn and every incident only magnifying the mystery at hand. The 1974 film keeps you thrilled and curious, with a great end scene (common in all Christie's stories) where Poirot discovers the truth. And it ends there. No hidden philosophical message. No personal conflict. Just a mystery solved.
The new (2010) TV version seems, well, different. The story has been turned from a pure mystery into a moral judgement about justice, God and taking law into your own hand. The focus on Poirot's Catholicism (which does not appear in any Christie's book) and the question of whether he will tell the truth or not - something that in the original story is left to the train boss and passengers - makes it quite a different story from the original.
It would have been okay to have a different take on the murder on the orient express if the new story had been told with the same magnificence as the original story. Unfortunately this was not true. First of all, 1.5 hour is not sufficient to properly develop a moral story as the director wanted to say. Perhaps if it was a big screen movie and an hour longer, it might have turned better. Second, in developing the moral/religious line of the story, the director has taken out a great deal of focus and thrill of the mystery story. The end scenes, especially the reaction of the colonel to Poirot's discovery of truth, is in line with the moral message of the film but looks ridiculous to veteran Poirot fans, and so is Poirot's hesitation at the end on what to do. A deep scene, but uncharacteristic of Poirot.
Overall, seasoned Poirot fans will be disappointed as this film is not really Poirot or Christie. Not even a good mystery. Others who like a film about moral judgements may enjoy it.
I was also shocked to see how old Suchet looked in this movie. I am not sure how longer he plans to play Poirot but the way he looks is now perfect to play Poirot in "Curtain", his last case.
Quite disappointed by this movie. The word "lame" is the best way to describe it: lame action, lame humor, lame plot. It is like the movie itself has aged. What can we say when the main action scene is about Shia Labeof jumping with Monkeys from one tree to another? Compare it with the "the Last crusade" with Indy barely hanging from a German tank while fighting a whole German army.
And just one scene with the "whip"? That's heresy!
As if the lame actions weren't enough, the acting was horrible (perhaps with exception of Shia Labeof who did just OK). Could someone please wipe that silly smile off Marian's face? And how could the new dean ever compare to the legendary Marcus Brody?
I have every Indiana Jones movie and computer game in my collection, but this one would not be added to it.
And just one scene with the "whip"? That's heresy!
As if the lame actions weren't enough, the acting was horrible (perhaps with exception of Shia Labeof who did just OK). Could someone please wipe that silly smile off Marian's face? And how could the new dean ever compare to the legendary Marcus Brody?
I have every Indiana Jones movie and computer game in my collection, but this one would not be added to it.