The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Dirs. Ronald Neame / Irwin Allen (uncredited)
Produced by master of disaster flicks Irwin Allen, Poseidon is a thoroughly enjoyable but admittedly pretty awful journey from the bowels of hell to the light of day for a small and varied collection of individuals who realise that they must band together if they're to have any hope of escape.
With plenty of rationalising and moralising along the way the ensemble cast do their best with the material, and by the end we know exactly why each character was included and what basic emotion they were required to appeal to, a task that most of them do rather well, I'm happy to say.
I know that it's basically trash given the big screen treatment, but I love it. Ernest Borgnine, Gene Hackman, Shelley Winters and Roddy McDowall all together on a sinking ship? Hell, yes.
Of course there was a sequel and a couple of remakes, and of course neither was as good. I'll add some thoughts below because I don't feel that any of them deserve a post of their own.
No matter. Set directly after the original film ends, it begins on a small tugboat caught in the same storm that overturned the S.S. Poseidon in the original film. Its cynical captain (Michael Caine) and his older first mate (Karl Malden) decide to enter the capsized death-trap in the hope of scoring some sweet salvage. Sally Field joins them because she's a woman and she's pretty.
The cast grows, as do their objectives, in order to pad out the runtime. The characters are distinct, and as it goes on each one does begin to feel somewhat beneficial to the whole. The movie's quiet moments provide opportunity to show their vulnerable side, in contrast to how they are under stress in the more eventful scenes. The finale is ridiculous, but how many viewers will even make it that far?
Ask yourself: what could I add to the story to make it better? If the answer is Middle Eastern terrorists, bombs, handguns, and Navy Seals, then you're probably an American screenwriter or producer, or perhaps you want to be? Either way, NBC had your story needs covered in Remake #1.
A TV Movie (alternatively screened as a two-part miniseries) titled The Poseidon Adventure (2005). It stars no-one particularly memorable and, incidentally, the modern additions didn't make it better.
It's essentially the same story, albeit with different backgrounds and professions for some of the group. There's a married couple who've been married too long (Steve Guttenberg + Alexa Hamilton), a widowed lady (Sylvia Syms), a friendly Bishop (Rutger Hauer), a TV Producer (Bryan Brown), and an undercover Sea Marshall (Adam Baldwin).
Unlike the original ship, which was an old liner on its final voyage, the remake's ship is a "state of the art" vessel with swanky rooms, showgirls, and even an internet lounge – although no one on board has a cell phone, for some reason.
The primary reason for its existence seems to have been to have the aforementioned political propaganda awkwardly and unceremoniously shoehorned into a story that didn't need it.
Looked at objectively, it isn't terrible; it's fine on a technical level, but feels passionless.
Subjectively, I feel it's less engaging and the characters aren't as interesting - they're still allocated particular roles, but their impact is lessened and the majority of them exist more for simple plot convenience than as useful vehicles to elicit viewer pathos.
Like so many things in the world of film, what audiences wanted from disaster movies (and what producers thought audiences wanted) had changed. I don't have enough knowledge of the genre to pinpoint when it happened, but at a rough guess I'd say it was complete by the time Independence Day (1996) came out, so that would maybe put the start of it in the preceding years, the late 80s to early 90s? Action movie clichés had replaced existing classic-era clichés; less time was devoted to story so that more could be given over to blowing shit up; and relatable, flawed protagonists were excised in favour of bankable action heroes.
I could list a dozen reasons why I think Remake #2 isn't as good as the original, but about 50% of them would be subjective, so I'll simply conclude that it is what it is, and not for me.
Subjectively, I feel it's less engaging and the characters aren't as interesting - they're still allocated particular roles, but their impact is lessened and the majority of them exist more for simple plot convenience than as useful vehicles to elicit viewer pathos.
Like so many things in the world of film, what audiences wanted from disaster movies (and what producers thought audiences wanted) had changed. I don't have enough knowledge of the genre to pinpoint when it happened, but at a rough guess I'd say it was complete by the time Independence Day (1996) came out, so that would maybe put the start of it in the preceding years, the late 80s to early 90s? Action movie clichés had replaced existing classic-era clichés; less time was devoted to story so that more could be given over to blowing shit up; and relatable, flawed protagonists were excised in favour of bankable action heroes.
I could list a dozen reasons why I think Remake #2 isn't as good as the original, but about 50% of them would be subjective, so I'll simply conclude that it is what it is, and not for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment