Kirasjeri
A rejoint le juil. 1999
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis130
Note de Kirasjeri
If you did not see the 1939 Korda brothers classic of the same name you will find this version entirely adequate and satisfying; if you did, you will likely be disappointed.
This version is apparently based far more faithfully on the novel - which means it is set in 1885 instead of 1898, and does not include the huge Battle of Omdurman or the prison revolt. The one battle in this version, the breaking of the British square, was better done in the earlier version which was far larger in scope and size than this more modest effort. Basing it on the novel also means more talk, more romance, and that is too bad.
Various attempts are made to humanize the natives, and there is some PC questioning about British imperialism, although nowhere does the movie mention that the British in Sudan in the 1880's were stopping the slave trade, besides protecting the Suez Canal.
The plot we basically know: a young British officer who resigns from his regiment when they are about to go off to war is denounced as a coward by his friends who give him the feathers; he then has to prove his courage by rescuing some of them disguised as a native.
That is where there is a real problem. In the 1939 version, Harry Faversham, the officer, goes to considerable lengths to disguise himself, such as being branded on the face and pretending to be a mute. Here, he just sort of muddles through. It is not convincing. He is befriended in a way by an all-too muscular native - a hackneyed convention.
The acting is no more than adequate, and in that it is not that different from the earlier version, although missing here is the great scene at the dinner table with C. Aubrey Smith, the venerable actor playing an old general, discoursing on past battles and the tradition Faversham needs to uphold. A shame that wasn't in this film.
Some of the actors having pierced left ears is entirely out of character. The final fight where a drugged and half dead Harry is further beaten almost to death - but then suddenly kills his attacker - is tired and old and almost embarrassingly bad.
Well, this was better than the old TV version of some years ago, but it pales compared to the 1939 version. So be warned.
This version is apparently based far more faithfully on the novel - which means it is set in 1885 instead of 1898, and does not include the huge Battle of Omdurman or the prison revolt. The one battle in this version, the breaking of the British square, was better done in the earlier version which was far larger in scope and size than this more modest effort. Basing it on the novel also means more talk, more romance, and that is too bad.
Various attempts are made to humanize the natives, and there is some PC questioning about British imperialism, although nowhere does the movie mention that the British in Sudan in the 1880's were stopping the slave trade, besides protecting the Suez Canal.
The plot we basically know: a young British officer who resigns from his regiment when they are about to go off to war is denounced as a coward by his friends who give him the feathers; he then has to prove his courage by rescuing some of them disguised as a native.
That is where there is a real problem. In the 1939 version, Harry Faversham, the officer, goes to considerable lengths to disguise himself, such as being branded on the face and pretending to be a mute. Here, he just sort of muddles through. It is not convincing. He is befriended in a way by an all-too muscular native - a hackneyed convention.
The acting is no more than adequate, and in that it is not that different from the earlier version, although missing here is the great scene at the dinner table with C. Aubrey Smith, the venerable actor playing an old general, discoursing on past battles and the tradition Faversham needs to uphold. A shame that wasn't in this film.
Some of the actors having pierced left ears is entirely out of character. The final fight where a drugged and half dead Harry is further beaten almost to death - but then suddenly kills his attacker - is tired and old and almost embarrassingly bad.
Well, this was better than the old TV version of some years ago, but it pales compared to the 1939 version. So be warned.
I won't repeat what some of the other reviews have said, other than to add my perspective. This was a marvelous film, made with great skill in every way, from screenplay to songs. It is also, along with "Waterloo Bridge" and "How Green Was My Valley" (see reviews), one of the saddest movies I have ever seen.
Of course it manipulates us into reaching for the hankies, but it does a good job at it. I consider myself a big cynical guy, but this movie! Man. I saw it many years ago, and to this day if someone mentions the word "sweetheart", I think of the song "Will You Remember?" and start getting teary-eyed!
Yes, I have it on video. I ALSO HAVE THE RADIO BROADCAST! In 1944, the Lux Radio Theater reprised the popular film in an hour long broadcast with the original stars. The adaptation was wonderfully done. The only change of note was Nelson Eddy sang the rousing French march, "Le Regiment du Sambre et Meuse" instead of Jeanette MacDonald. I downloaded this gem from the Bearshare peer to peer service. It is worth looking for and downloading.
Just don't anyone ever say "Sweethearts" to me - in any context at any time I think of "Maytime" and get sad. Of course some people love those types of films.
One memorable movie. But it made me so sad I almost wish I never saw it. Almost!
Of course it manipulates us into reaching for the hankies, but it does a good job at it. I consider myself a big cynical guy, but this movie! Man. I saw it many years ago, and to this day if someone mentions the word "sweetheart", I think of the song "Will You Remember?" and start getting teary-eyed!
Yes, I have it on video. I ALSO HAVE THE RADIO BROADCAST! In 1944, the Lux Radio Theater reprised the popular film in an hour long broadcast with the original stars. The adaptation was wonderfully done. The only change of note was Nelson Eddy sang the rousing French march, "Le Regiment du Sambre et Meuse" instead of Jeanette MacDonald. I downloaded this gem from the Bearshare peer to peer service. It is worth looking for and downloading.
Just don't anyone ever say "Sweethearts" to me - in any context at any time I think of "Maytime" and get sad. Of course some people love those types of films.
One memorable movie. But it made me so sad I almost wish I never saw it. Almost!