The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

LAST OF THE MOHICANS

The Last of the Mohicans ...

My blistering review of the BBC version of LOTM

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by Army_Brat84[/i]
[br]To all in Mohicanland,

First, let me say thanks again for the free DVD from the contest last year. Normally, I would not poorly review something that cost me nothing, but in this case, I must make an exception. This DVD is really bad. First, the filming style changed from movie style for far away scenes involving many actors, to cheap “Cosby Show” (no offense to that show, but it was the first example that came to mind when thinking about how to describe the filming style) style for close in scenes.  The film style for close scenes is typical of television shows of the 1970-’80s, but it did a great disservice to the quality of the program.  Second, the dialogue was way overblown.  You had lengthy ramblings from various characters, which took away from the flow of the show.  Third, was the innaccuracy of the uniforms.  The tri-corner hats looked like cheap props used in a junior high school production.  The uniforms of the French were way off in terms of color, as they were dark blue with red trim (similar in almost every way to American uniforms from the Revolutionary War), as opposed to the proper white and/or light blue actually worn by the  French.  Finally, the order of the scenes did not fit with either the novel or the two movies.  My dad and I could only watch a couple of the episodes before coming to the conclusion that this program was not worth our time.  I therefore give the BBC version of The Last of the Mohicans two resounding thumbs down.  It is blatantly innaccurate in terms of the history of the French and Indian War as well as not following the book, or both movies. Rich, I am sorry that I reached this unfortunate conclusion, as I was really excited about the program, but the BBC fell way short. I certainly do not want to hurt the sales of this DVD by the board store, but I also must make known the issues that arise with this DVD.

Daniel

[/quote]

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Army_Brat84	Posted - June 15 2007 : 11:48:48 PM To all in Mohicanland, First, let me say thanks again for the free DVD from the contest last year. Normally, I would not poorly review something that cost me nothing, but in this case, I must make an exception. This DVD is really bad. First, the filming style changed from movie style for far away scenes involving many actors, to cheap “Cosby Show” (no offense to that show, but it was the first example that came to mind when thinking about how to describe the filming style) style for close in scenes. The film style for close scenes is typical of television shows of the 1970-’80s, but it did a great disservice to the quality of the program. Second, the dialogue was way overblown. You had lengthy ramblings from various characters, which took away from the flow of the show. Third, was the innaccuracy of the uniforms. The tri-corner hats looked like cheap props used in a junior high school production. The uniforms of the French were way off in terms of color, as they were dark blue with red trim (similar in almost every way to American uniforms from the Revolutionary War), as opposed to the proper white and/or light blue actually worn by the French. Finally, the order of the scenes did not fit with either the novel or the two movies. My dad and I could only watch a couple of the episodes before coming to the conclusion that this program was not worth our time. I therefore give the BBC version of The Last of the Mohicans two resounding thumbs down. It is blatantly innaccurate in terms of the history of the French and Indian War as well as not following the book, or both movies. Rich, I am sorry that I reached this unfortunate conclusion, as I was really excited about the program, but the BBC fell way short. I certainly do not want to hurt the sales of this DVD by the board store, but I also must make known the issues that arise with this DVD. Daniel
18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Lapus	Posted - June 25 2007 : 5:42:10 PM The BBC did a version of LOTM?? Wow!! Ya learn something new every day around here. Later days, Lapus
blackfootblood	Posted - June 18 2007 : 4:00:22 PM quote: Originally posted by Wilderness Woman I was participating in the re-enactment at Custaloga Town Boy Scout Camp near Meadville. Neat!! I was just wondering. I'm from Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Born and raised in the little town of Berlin. I guess not far from where you were. I've actually been to Meadville a few times. Nice place.
Wilderness Woman	Posted - June 18 2007 : 3:14:05 PM I was participating in the re-enactment at Custaloga Town Boy Scout Camp near Meadville.
blackfootblood	Posted - June 18 2007 : 12:43:26 PM quote: Originally posted by Wilderness Woman I've just returned from the Wilderness of Western Pennsylvania and found this discussion, so I thought I would just venture my own opinion. I think we can just totally set aside the whole "visual accuracy" issue with this series. It was, after all, a product of the early 70s. I went into the viewing of it with that solidly in my mind and just sat back and let the dialogue and the acting carry me through it. And I thought both were pretty good, for the most part. I watched it over a couple of sittings, and I found myself getting into the story, both from the aspect of "what is going to happen next?" and "I wonder how this part will differ from the movie." I found that I was, all in all, quite entertained. Hey WW, what part of western PA?
Wilderness Woman	Posted - June 18 2007 : 12:24:22 PM I've just returned from the Wilderness of Western Pennsylvania and found this discussion, so I thought I would just venture my own opinion. I think we can just totally set aside the whole "visual accuracy" issue with this series. It was, after all, a product of the early 70s. I went into the viewing of it with that solidly in my mind and just sat back and let the dialogue and the acting carry me through it. And I thought both were pretty good, for the most part. I watched it over a couple of sittings, and I found myself getting into the story, both from the aspect of "what is going to happen next?" and "I wonder how this part will differ from the movie." I found that I was, all in all, quite entertained.
Light of the Moon	Posted - June 18 2007 : 11:07:38 AM I thought it was ok, considering it's time. But present day LOTM blows it off the planet! And history channel...I choose not to have cable so I get WCET. Recently they aired a 3 hour program on the Inca Empire during the spanish evasions. Very, very interesting. Would definately see it again.
Irishgirl	Posted - June 17 2007 : 2:02:47 PM quote: Originally posted by Fitzhugh Williams Remember that the BBC-LOTM was not meant to be watched in one sitting (like I did) but over a period of weeks. I think if it were viewed that way, it would take on a different look. Geeze that was over 8 hours of viewing or was it 5 hours. Never mind, anyhow your eyes must have been sore after that. I watched an episode at a time and after a week was done with the series. Longest I sit to watch anything is about an hour and a half. Get a sore butt after that. Always interrupted as well with kids wanting something.
Monadnock Guide	Posted - June 16 2007 : 7:23:31 PM What are yousaying Fitz? - The Tory's didn't wear hiking boots?? Are you absolutely sure? ;)
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - June 16 2007 : 7:15:24 PM Remember that the BBC-LOTM was not meant to be watched in one sitting (like I did) but over a period of weeks. I think if it were viewed that way, it would take on a different look. History Channel? One of our favorites is when they hang a Tory, and it shows the soles of his shoes, and they are cleated hiking boots. But then, maybe Tories wore hiking boots. And it takes a minute and a half to load a rifle? Maybe if you stop to eat a sandwich while you doing it.
Monadnock Guide	Posted - June 16 2007 : 7:04:01 PM Hey, - watching how a cement factory makes cement is better than anything on - except football.
Irishgirl	Posted - June 16 2007 : 7:03:51 PM It does looked like it was filmed a lot "indoors" in a studio and the dialogue was too long-winded in places but overall I enjoyed it. The first episode or two takes some getting used to, but after that I just watched and it wasn't too bad. It is like a play, especially to begin with, but I persevered and watched the whole thing and for the 70's it was good "television viewing". Nothing can compare to the big movie we all know and love so much. Sad to hear that you "gave up on it" but if you really disliked it that much then I can't say I blame you. I would encourage others to watch though and come to their own conclusions about this series. Nice to hear your take on it though ArmyBrat.
Army_Brat84	Posted - June 16 2007 : 6:55:13 PM On the History Channel, I will say that the early programs from the mid to late '90s were good (American Revolution, Frontier, Civil War Journal), but the "documentaries" of late are bad, with very poor reenacting and acting. Fitz, on the French uniforms, I recall my error, they did not wear light blue (I was thinking about Montcalm's coat).
Monadnock Guide	Posted - June 16 2007 : 6:51:09 PM BTW Fitz, - I do understand what you're saying. If I end up watching something about the sea, and and someone says "hard port" - and the character turns the wheel to the right,- bingo!! Probably like seeing someone with a revolver 90 years before the first one was even developed.
Monadnock Guide	Posted - June 16 2007 : 6:06:06 PM To each his own, ...
Obediah	Posted - June 16 2007 : 5:58:01 PM Waitaminite! Let's don't leave out the SciFi Channel and the Food Network!
Monadnock Guide	Posted - June 16 2007 : 3:36:23 PM I don't watch all that much TV, except football of course, - but there's only two channels worth watching, - The History Channel and the Discovery Channel. Anything else is total garbage.
RedFraggle	Posted - June 16 2007 : 1:37:17 PM I've only seen the bit of this series that is posted on YouTube---a gunfight scene. It did look a little (okay, a lot!) cheezy, but I figure most movies made about that time do. Example: My mom gave me the BBC's early 80's version of Jane Eyre for Christmas. I like the story of Jane Eyre, but I find the series hard to watch because it has a "cheap" look to it, like watching a low-budget stage play rather than a TV show. Then of course there's I, Claudius. All the background props are cheezy looking, but it's a classic nonetheless, in my opinion. So now I guess I'll know what to look for when I do watch the BBC LOTM. It's on my Netflix queue, much to my husband's chagrin. Every time I watch MM's version of LOTM, he shakes his head and exclaims, with a deep sigh, that I'm "obsessed." Oh, and Fitz: I totally agree about History Channel programming. I have a lot of archaeologist friends, and we're such nerds that we sometimes turn on the History Channel for fun just to laugh at its gross inaccuracies and horrid re-enactment scenes. The Roman and Greek ones are a scream . . . if you're a huge like me.
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - June 16 2007 : 11:17:41 AM Everything you say is true (except about the French wearing light blue uniforms) but when you look at the other movies being made at that time, it is no better or worse than the rest. It was a product of it's time. I have the 1936 and the 1932 versions of the film and they are all different. Again products of their time. Michael Mann did a much better job than anyone has before or since and set a new standard for these type of movies, and like it or not, we judge the other movies against that standard. A movie from a different time period needs to be watched as if it were movie history itself. If not, it will always come up short. And as to the current state of affairs, one only has to look at the History Channel to see how bad things still are.

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.14 seconds