| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - December 16 2015 : 8:22:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAZgmPvDtKY |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - December 21 2015 : 09:34:46 AM
No question M.Mann is by far the better director - but if you look at the props, "bark huts" etc. in the Indian villages, it's clearly a low budget affair, start to end - something I don't think Mann had to contend with. IMO, the scenery & music really set the two apart. Also a LOT fewer people to pay with no fort and supporting characters/troops. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - December 21 2015 : 09:09:26 AM
I think that for Michael Mann the scenery was as important as the acting. In the 1977 version the scenery simply provided a stage for the acting to occur. And I think it could have been done better on the same budget by a better director. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - December 20 2015 : 7:08:16 PM
Actually I just watched it - had posted the link after seeing about 10-15 minutes. I would agree, with a larger budget and better music it wouldn't be all that bad at all. - My guess is, with a larger budget, there may well have been a Fort Fort William Henry, and more history. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - December 20 2015 : 07:56:09 AM
I watched this version last night. It is a low budget film made for TV and obviously shot somewhere in the west. It definitely points out that Michael Mann is a much better director. Sad thing is, this could have been a decent movie if they had just used a little more forethought with the filming. And it never showed Fort WH, the Brit army, nor any French at all. Just Hurons and Delewares and a couple of Mohicans. And music. They needed good music. |
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
