AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
New Captain Blood movie - who would you like to see in it?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> General Chat Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Natalie



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 1693

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:41 pm    Post subject: New Captain Blood movie - who would you like to see in it? Reply with quote

A new movie is to come out in 2010. No rumors on casting yet.

When I read about it my first thought was: it's too bad Adrian Paul is a tad too old for that part because he'd have been perfect!

Another candidate is Ioan Gruffudd but he's a bit too old too, and besides, he'll always remain Hornblower in my heart :)

Honestly, I can't think of any young actors who could play him (please, no Orland Bloom!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1828
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Blood!!! You mean the 1935 Errol Flynn/Olivia de Havilland movie?!

Finally, Hollywood gets it right and remakes a good film that many younger people probably never saw -- although, I would heartily recommend the original.

Wonderful, romantic/adventure film.

If only I could make them remake The Gay Sisters or Private Number. There are actually loads of wonderful stories from Hollywood of the 30's and 40's which could be updated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Natalie



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 1693

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm ashamed to admit I've never seen the Erol Flynn movie. It caught my attention because it's based on one of the best adventure books ever written by Rafael Sabatini. Check it out, it still holds up pretty well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1828
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if you know anything about Flynn and de Havilland -- such as their performances in The Adventures of Robin Hood or Dodge City -- you know they are wonderful together ... like Tracy and Hepburn, Astaire and Rogers and Hudson and Day.

ETA:
Here is the 1935 review of the movie from The New York Times, as well as some more recent reviews. What a hoot! The newcomer, Errol Flynn!!!

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9403E6DD173AE13ABC4F51DFB467838E629EDE

Quote:
Movie Review
Captain Blood (1935)
December 27, 1935
A Newcomer Named Errol Flynn in a Handsome Film Version of 'Captain Blood,' at the Strand.
By ANDRE SENNWALD.
Published: December 27, 1935

The history of Dr. Peter Blood, Sabatini's gentleman corsair, is treated with visual beauty and a fine, swaggering arrogance in the new screen version of "Captain Blood" at the Strand Theatre. With a spirited and criminally good-looking Australian named Errol Flynn playing the genteel buccaneer to the hilt, the photoplay recaptures the air of high romantic adventure which is so essential to the tale. Providing a properly picturesque background for Dr. Blood's piratical career, the Warner Brothers skillfully reconstruct the England of the sanguinary Monmouth uprising, the West Indies of tortured slaves and savage masters, and the ships that sailed the Spanish Main flying the jolly roger.

Only yesterday Basil Rathbone was grinding the poor of Paris in "A Tale of Two Cities," and now, with equal skill if slightly increased likableness, he is quarreling with Captain Blood over the disposition of the handsome English captive, Miss Arabella Bishop. Mr. Rathbone has a habit of dying violently in his pictures, but his demise in this one, when Blood punctures him at the conclusion of a desperately waged duel, seems more lamentable than usual. Perhaps it is because he lacks the proper seasoning of villainy this time.

All Levasseur, the picturesque French freebooter, wanted was the girl, who was rightfully his by right of conquest. Somehow it seemed extravagantly prissy of the Englishman to fight him in abstract defense of the lady's honor instead of admitting candidly that he wanted Arabella for himself. Anyway, it is a brave bit of sword-play that these audacious fellows put on, up and down the Coast, while their rival crews look on.

You may recall that Dr. Blood was an amateur pirate, forced into the business because King James had shipped him off to the Indies with the other condemned Monmouth rebels. A physician by profession, his part in the uprising was innocent, but the king's court convicted him along with the rest. He scorned his masters and laughed when they flogged him, but Arabella saved him from a living death in her uncle's mines at Port Royal because she liked his courage and his face. Then he led the slaves in an uprising, stole a Spanish ship while its crew was looting the town and became the most celebrated corsair in the Caribbean.

Mr. Flynn has an effective cast at his back. Olivia de Havilland is a lady of rapturous loveliness and well worth fighting for. Lionel Atwill, as the cruel governor of Port Royal, is as thorough a knave as Peter Blood is a gentleman. Among the excellent group of players who people the smaller rôles you will discover E. E. Clive, the wonderful jurist of "A Tale of Two Cities," who is humorously effective if somewhat less spectacular as the clerk of the bloody assizes.


http://www.amazon.com/Captain-Blood-Errol-Flynn/dp/6302120527

Quote:
Amazon.com essential video
The swashbuckler had been around long before Errol Flynn drew a cutlass, but the Tasmanian-born bit player reinvigorated the genre with his mix of dashing good looks, haughty insolence, and alluring confidence. Adapted from the novel by Rafael Sabatini (who also penned The Sea Hawk), this rousing adventure chronicles the travails of Peter Blood (Flynn), a righteous doctor unjustly sold into slavery for treating the wounds of rebels, a kind of British Dr. Mudd. Sent to a Jamaican plantation where he toils under the brutal whip of Lionel Atwill and seethes with passion for his fair niece (the astonishingly beautiful Olivia de Havilland), he escapes from bondage with his fellow prisoners and becomes the gentleman rogue pirate of the Caribbean. Director Michael Curtiz builds from one set piece to another, including a nimble beachside sword fight with pirate nemesis Basil Rathbone and climaxing with a grand sea battle that belies the film's modest budget. Flynn's bravado and charisma are apparent from his entrance, but once he leaps into action he takes command of the picture, overcoming his still-green dramatic skills with sheer personality. Captain Blood made stars of Flynn and de Havilland and catapulted Curtiz to the top ranks of Warner directors. The three reunited for some of the studio's best-loved adventures: The Charge of the Light Brigade, The Adventures of Robin Hood, and Dodge City. --Sean Axmaker



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/captain_blood/#

Quote:
Synopsis: In the classic swashbuckling epic that catapulted him to worldwide stardom, Errol Flynn plays Dr. Peter Blood, an English physician unjustly convicted of treason and sentenced to slavery in the... In the classic swashbuckling epic that catapulted him to worldwide stardom, Errol Flynn plays Dr. Peter Blood, an English physician unjustly convicted of treason and sentenced to slavery in the West Indies. Relying on his formidable nerve and wit, he escapes and soon becomes a feared pirate known as Captain Blood, a brilliant swordsman and seaman whose fiercely loyal crew is made up of runaway slaves grateful to him for winning their freedom. Olivia de Havilland, in the first of eight films starring opposite Flynn, is alluring as Arabella Bishop, the dashing pirate captain's romantic interest. Lionel Atwill, famed for his demented performances in horror films, is satisfyingly despicable as Arabella's uncle, a despotic plantation owner. Director Michael Curtiz (CASABLANCA) pulls no dramatic punches, filling the screen with thrilling battle scenes, stampeding horses, hurtling, wave-tossed ships, and a rousing Erich Wolfgang Korngold score to make CAPTAIN BLOOD a truly lavish seafaring odyssey. Flynn, only five years removed from piloting a daring four-man, seven-month boat trip from Sydney, Australia, to New Guinea (described in his memoir BEAM ENDS), signals with his every joyfully kinetic onscreen moment the full-fledged arrival of a huge, inimitable talent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LeeB.



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1281
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, personally, I would not like to see Captain Blood remade. All I can think about is CGI -- ack!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Natalie



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 1693

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mind CGI if it's not too obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cora



Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 1129
Location: Bremen, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I rarely see the need for remakes, especially if the original is still as good as the 1935 Captain Blood. Few actors nowadays can match Errol Flynn in charm, charisma and physical presence. And none of those who might be able to pull it off are famous enough for Hollywood. Which means we'll end up with a hollow pretty boy like Orlando Bloom or Colin Farrell in the lead and heavily doubled/CGIed fights.

And for that matter, we didn't need a remake of The Day the Earth stood still either. The original is still fine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Natalie



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 1693

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But this is not a remake, it's a new adaptation of the book. Rolling Eyes Sometimes the movie is so great (and famous) a new version is not likely to come about (Gone with the Wind, Godfather, to name a few). I haven't seen Erol Flynn version but it's probably less well known and more outdated than, say, Godfather.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cora



Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 1129
Location: Bremen, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I find The Godfather more dated than Captain Blood, which has that timeless classic feel. The only reason some people might dislike it is because it's black and white, which is rather shallow IMO. Though I don't think either of them needs a new adaption, since The Godfather isn't all that good a story IMO and the Captain Blood adaption was faithful to the book, unlike e.g. the Errol Flynn adaption of Rafael Sabatini's The Sea Hawk, which had nothing but the title in common with the book.

As for literary adaptions in general, it is certainly possible to make more than one good film of a book. But if a movie works and is a faithful adaption of the book, I often don't see the point. Did we really need the Keira Knightly/Matthew McFadyen adaption of Pride and Prejudice only approximately ten years after the excellent Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle adaption? Did we really need another three or four takes on Philip Marlowe after Humphrey Bogart made the role his own in The Big Sleep. Does The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham, a novel released in 1951, really need eight official adaptions and a number of unofficial ones, e.g. disguised as episodes of Doctor Who or The Avengers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LeeB.



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1281
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cora wrote:
Did we really need the Keira Knightly/Matthew McFadyen adaption of Pride and Prejudice only approximately ten years after the excellent Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle adaption?

Nope!

Cora wrote:
Did we really need another three or four takes on Philip Marlowe after Humphrey Bogart made the role his own in The Big Sleep.

Nope!

Cora wrote:
Does The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham, a novel released in 1951, really need eight official adaptions and a number of unofficial ones, e.g. disguised as episodes of Doctor Who or The Avengers?

Nope!

I'm with you Cora! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:34 pm    Post subject: Re: New Captain Blood movie - who would you like to see in i Reply with quote

Natalie wrote:
Honestly, I can't think of any young actors who could play him (please, no Orland Bloom!).


No Orlando Bloom?? Crying or Very sad But as soon as I saw the thread, I thought, "Oh, boy! I hope Orlando Bloom gets the part!"

What have you got against the lad?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JaneO



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 798

PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote]Cora wrote:
Did we really need the Keira Knightly/Matthew McFadyen adaption of Pride and Prejudice only approximately ten years after the excellent Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle adaption?

Nope!

Cora wrote:
Did we really need another three or four takes on Philip Marlowe after Humphrey Bogart made the role his own in The Big Sleep.

Nope!

Cora wrote:
Does The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham, a novel released in 1951, really need eight official adaptions and a number of unofficial ones, e.g. disguised as episodes of Doctor Who or The Avengers?

Nope!

I'm with you Cora! [/quote]

Ditto! (My grandmother, on first seeing Errol Flynn exclaimed "My god, he's beautiful!" [Actually,she said it in Czech, but I didn't think many people would understand.])
_________________
JaneO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CD



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 665
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:01 pm    Post subject: Re: New Captain Blood movie - who would you like to see in i Reply with quote

LizE wrote:
No Orlando Bloom?? Crying or Very sad But as soon as I saw the thread, I thought, "Oh, boy! I hope Orlando Bloom gets the part!"

What have you got against the lad?


Speaking personally, Orlando Bloom strikes me as a light-weight pretty boy who can't act and doesn't really seem to have any personality beyond the face. Granted, Errol Flynn couldn't really act either but he didn't have to having spade-loads of charm, and the ability to do both the "devil-may-care" attitude as well as the steely resolve without coming across as ridiculous.

However, I'm having trouble thinking of anyone better though. Adrian Paul would have been fantastic, I agree. It's a difficult casting - not many actors can pull off both light comedy and drama in the same movie, as well as charm, screen presence and the right physicality for the role... The only person I can think of who could probably do it is Vincent Perez, judging by his recent Fanfan La Tulipe. Unfortunately, I don't think that Captain Blood has a French accent.

[sigh] Where have the old-school Hollywood swashbuckling actors gone? Back then, as well as Errol Flynn, we had Burt Lancaster and Tyrone Powers...

As for remakes - I have to disagree with Philip Marlowe: granted, Bogart's version was great but I have a fondness for Robert Mitchem's Farewell My Lovely. I think Mitchem's version is actually closer to the Marlowe of the books, especially in terms of his physicality. It was also a valid reinterpretation of the book set in the 1970s with the different but similar atmosphere of moral decay.

I think remakes of great classic films really do need to set out to do something different otherwise it is a rather pointless exercise - a bit like Hollywood's "translation" of foreign films, which always makes me laugh, especially when British films are counted as "foreign".
_________________
"Socialism to help sick people - bad.
Socialism to help billionaires - good."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1828
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:02 pm    Post subject: Re: New Captain Blood movie - who would you like to see in i Reply with quote

CD wrote:
I think remakes of great classic films really do need to set out to do something different otherwise it is a rather pointless exercise - a bit like Hollywood's "translation" of foreign films, which always makes me laugh, especially when British films are counted as "foreign".


I agree that one shouldn't remake classic films just because they are old and many amongst the younger generations probably haven't seen them. Instead, polish the original up and show it! If you remake it badly, these youngin's will now think the story stinks when it was actually quite good when well done originally!

I have often thought, if they're going to remake a movie, they should go for a really good, "B" movie, which they might be able to improve.

There have been some successful remakes, even ones based on foreign films. For instance, in my opinion, "Imitation of Life" made in 1959 is an improvement on the 1934 version. The 1957 "An Affair to Remember" is an improvement on the 1939, "Love Affair" -- although the later, third remake, with Annette Benning and Warren Beatty was totally unnecessary. The 1994 "Little Women" is much better than its predecessors, made in 1933 and 1949. Also, I thought the Lindsay Lohan, "Parent Trap" did a fairly good job of refreshing the Hayley Mills 1961 version.

As for foreign movies, I thought the 1989 American version ("Cousins") of the French film "Cousin Cousine" was wonderfully romantic and definitely stood on its own, whatever you thought of the French film. And clearly, "The Magnificent Seven" is a really good interpretation of the 1954 Japanese film, "Seven Samurai".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skrabs



Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 387
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hollywood stars had presence back then (Lancaster, Power etc). These days all they have is a pretty face. There are very few actors that can (IMO) own the screen the way they used to be able to. I always think Russell Crowe steals the show, despite what I think of him personally and I thought Daniel Craig is pretty compelling. They're men... Bloom and his co. are boys in comparison. I like to look at them but I don't need a movie for that, a billboard or magazine will do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> General Chat Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group