Timeline--that movie sucked

[jiacinto]

Did anyone else see it. I just have one question:

Since one of the characters stays back in time, how can he be reborn centuries later?

Also, since they find the coffin with one ear on it, how is that person allowed to be alive?

The movie tries to be good, but it just fails.

[MrBenchley]

1. From the review in the Newark Star-Ledger

"Richard Donner has directed more films than you can shake a stick at...which is the reception most of them, including this one, deserve..."

[jiacinto]

2. I agree

nt

[XanaDUer]

3. I was going to see it

my BF wants to anyway.

Oh, well.

[argyl]

4. Discounting the paradoxes,this movie sucked on every level.

Real sorry I wasted my money on it.

[SheilaT]

5. He's not reborn,

just lives out the second half or so of his life in a different era. No problem there.

I'm not sure I follow your complaint about the ear.

The book is much better. Biggest problem with the movie is that it's dumbed down from the book with absolutely no improvement.

I've been complaining for years that the problem with science fiction movies is that they're made by people who know how to make movies, but for the most part do not know science fiction. Too bad. There are actually a lot of good s-f books out there, that if adapted properly, could make very good movies.

[jus_the_facts]

6. The book is quite good......always better than the movie anyway! eom

[HEyHEY]

7. you're a bit late on this post for sure

[jus_the_facts]

8. ooookay.....

:shrug:

[kanrok]

9. I Loved the book too

n/t

[Interrobang]

10. Well, not completely...

I didn't watch it for the plot (although to answer your one question, I just sort of assumed that Andre Marek became his own great! grandfather or something; in fact, I don't see a paradox between having two people with the same name in different time periods -- don't ask, never mind...).

The medieval stuff in the film was about as good as medieval stuff in big-budget films gets. Yes, there were a few glaring errors, but it was far more accurate than a lot of so-called "historical" films, and it wasn't even trying. Other than the night fighting (NO medieval battles happened at night, but I understand from a cinematic POV why they did it that way), the fighting scenes were fairly accurate, the costuming was remarkably good (a few blunders, but better than most!), and they handled most of the other technical aspects of the period section really well. (NO oogly complex chartered Victorian heraldic monstrosities!)

In that respect, it was a good film. And seriously, there ARE no good time travel stories, because time travel almost always involves paradox, so why, if you were going to object to it on those grounds, go to see it at all? I didn't go to see it for the metaplot; I went to see it for the period stuff, which they did well, so I was perfectly satisfied with it. Actually, I can't wait to rent it and sit down with my fiance, who knows more about the Hundred Years' War period than I do, and find out if my impressions were as accurate as I think.