03-17-2006, 12:44 AM
Thanks for the movie trivia, Graham. I'm pretty sure that the Pharsalia scene was shot in Spain. If not, maybe the Spanish scenes didn't make the final cut.
I agree about Cleopatra. It's good, IMO, but it could've been great.
Also in "El Cid". And "The Vikings"
Hmm...maybe the truth is somewhere in between :wink: But yeah, Ben Hur is anti-Roman, though perhaps not as overtly so as some other films.
Hi Niedal,
He's capable of delivering good performances (e.g. Ben Hur) but they don't come from any natural talent or training. Anyone can give a good acting performance if you shoot 40 takes until you get it right. With Stephen Boyd, it's like pulling teeth.
My opinion of Boyd is based on Charlton Heston's commentary from the Ben Hur DVD (not the new release). Heston said Wyler (the director) really had to work at it with Boyd. FOTRE made me believe it.
As Graham said, Heston turned it down (which was smart, IMO.) He knows a bad script when he reads one. Heston's body of work (and acting) is the most impressive when it comes to epic films, IMO.
Judging it purely as a film, I disagree. If you're watching it as serious entertainment, you're likely to be disappointed. That's why it bombed (or one major reason anyway.)
I am too, but I think Stone felt confident he could draw in more young viewers if he made Alex the way he wanted to. Maybe he suceeded, but it was at the expense of drawing in older viewers. Result = Bomb !
Sorta like Napoleon - a glorious failure :wink:
I agree about Cleopatra. It's good, IMO, but it could've been great.
Quote:Frank Thring was always superb as a villain!!!
Also in "El Cid". And "The Vikings"
Quote:Perhaps not some Romans but Rome..... "is strangling the earth, when she falls there will be a cry of freedom the like of which has never been heard" or something along those lines. A bit different to being "like a mighty tree with green leaves and black roots"!
Hmm...maybe the truth is somewhere in between :wink: But yeah, Ben Hur is anti-Roman, though perhaps not as overtly so as some other films.
Hi Niedal,
Quote:I agree with most said, maybe not with the Stephen Boyd comment
He's capable of delivering good performances (e.g. Ben Hur) but they don't come from any natural talent or training. Anyone can give a good acting performance if you shoot 40 takes until you get it right. With Stephen Boyd, it's like pulling teeth.
My opinion of Boyd is based on Charlton Heston's commentary from the Ben Hur DVD (not the new release). Heston said Wyler (the director) really had to work at it with Boyd. FOTRE made me believe it.
Quote:The part is just really poorly written, and I don't think Charlton Heston would have been any better in it
As Graham said, Heston turned it down (which was smart, IMO.) He knows a bad script when he reads one. Heston's body of work (and acting) is the most impressive when it comes to epic films, IMO.
Quote:But to me, it's still the best Roman movie to date.
Judging it purely as a film, I disagree. If you're watching it as serious entertainment, you're likely to be disappointed. That's why it bombed (or one major reason anyway.)
Quote:By the way, I totally disagree that Oliver Stone catered to the young crowd with his interpretation of Alex. I am absolutely positive that that's how he sees Alex
I am too, but I think Stone felt confident he could draw in more young viewers if he made Alex the way he wanted to. Maybe he suceeded, but it was at the expense of drawing in older viewers. Result = Bomb !
Quote:Failed and flawed in many ways, but on what a scale!
Sorta like Napoleon - a glorious failure :wink:
Jaime
