Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuFor modern teenagers Lucy and Jamie, adventure arrives in the form of a mysterious old man with a job offer - as caretakers to a ruined old house that's said to be haunted. With his help, Lu... Alles lesenFor modern teenagers Lucy and Jamie, adventure arrives in the form of a mysterious old man with a job offer - as caretakers to a ruined old house that's said to be haunted. With his help, Lucy and Jamie must travel back in time to 1821.For modern teenagers Lucy and Jamie, adventure arrives in the form of a mysterious old man with a job offer - as caretakers to a ruined old house that's said to be haunted. With his help, Lucy and Jamie must travel back in time to 1821.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 Nominierungen insgesamt
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Adapted almost scene for scene from the original but with pantomime villains and a loss of charm and mystery. Whilst the young actors do their best and Callow is an acceptable Blunden the move to modern perood detracts from the timelessness of the Lionel Jeffrey's version. Watch the original and give yourself a treat.
The Amazing Mr Blunden (2021)-
It starts off well, but then it becomes quite childish, but in a style from about ten years ago or possibly even longer as it has the same production values and ideals as TV films from my own childhood, which is not that recent.
Some of the characters are very pantomime and I don't think that was necessary. They are more enjoyable if they're realistic, especially when it isn't all of the cast. And actually they would have been more scary too.
The kids are ok and Simon Callow is obviously brilliant in his performance, although his character, Mr Blunden isn't really "Amazing", just guilty. A "Scrooge" that knew a spell.
There are similarities in the story to 'Lemony Snicket's Series Of Unfortunate Events' with bits of 'A Christmas Carol', 'Five Children And It, and the 'Narnia' stories, but it's definitely not executed anywhere near as well as these.
I wonder if it's true to the original book? I mean it was obviously not set in 2021, but I would be interested to know if the book has more incite as to why Mr Blunden might be amazing? (The book is actually called 'The Ghosts' though).
I wouldn't rush to watch it again, but might give it a second chance in years to come and maybe my mood might be more cheery and I may see something new that I missed on this first viewing, but I doubt it.
240.92/1000.
It starts off well, but then it becomes quite childish, but in a style from about ten years ago or possibly even longer as it has the same production values and ideals as TV films from my own childhood, which is not that recent.
Some of the characters are very pantomime and I don't think that was necessary. They are more enjoyable if they're realistic, especially when it isn't all of the cast. And actually they would have been more scary too.
The kids are ok and Simon Callow is obviously brilliant in his performance, although his character, Mr Blunden isn't really "Amazing", just guilty. A "Scrooge" that knew a spell.
There are similarities in the story to 'Lemony Snicket's Series Of Unfortunate Events' with bits of 'A Christmas Carol', 'Five Children And It, and the 'Narnia' stories, but it's definitely not executed anywhere near as well as these.
I wonder if it's true to the original book? I mean it was obviously not set in 2021, but I would be interested to know if the book has more incite as to why Mr Blunden might be amazing? (The book is actually called 'The Ghosts' though).
I wouldn't rush to watch it again, but might give it a second chance in years to come and maybe my mood might be more cheery and I may see something new that I missed on this first viewing, but I doubt it.
240.92/1000.
Very disappointing remake of a classic children's film. Don't waste your time, just check out the original. An classic ghost story has been robbed of it's atmosphere. A lightweight version with comic book characters.
This is no where near as good as the original film. It's so watered-down the characters are bland and it's just boring.
It doesn't draw you in and the acting just isn't at the same standard of the original film. There wasn't any magic to it like the original. I wish they would just leave these movies alone. If you can't make it better then don't do it!
The original film is the best. It has more emotion and the characters really draw you in making it believable.
No one can replace the original Mr Blunden.
Why they have to take a really good movie and remake it when the original classic was brilliant I just don't understand?
It doesn't draw you in and the acting just isn't at the same standard of the original film. There wasn't any magic to it like the original. I wish they would just leave these movies alone. If you can't make it better then don't do it!
The original film is the best. It has more emotion and the characters really draw you in making it believable.
No one can replace the original Mr Blunden.
Why they have to take a really good movie and remake it when the original classic was brilliant I just don't understand?
I am a huge fan of Mark Gatiss and I've been following his career since The League of Gentlemen. I loved Sherlock, his Dr Who work, and even his Dracula was interesting.
Unfortunately, this is a real misstep. Unlike some reviews, I don't have a problem with the colour blind casting. Nor do I mind the present day setting, although I felt the 200 years time shift too much. My issues are it's just badly paced and poorly directed.
The original had the luxury of setting the back story much better, particularly regarding the Wickens. Instead, we get some serious exposition by means of a puppet show. The whole thing is just too rushed. We know barely anything about Thomas, and it's obvious from our first meeting what the true nature of Mr Blunden is. Maybe this was all done make it more accessible to younger viewers, but I saw the original at a young age and understood it.
The acting? Tamsin Greig chews scenery, the kids are ordinary, Simon Callow is Simon Callow and Mr Gatiss himself? Ah. Oh dear. He is basically channeling Mickey from the Job Start scheme in The League of Gentlemen. Pretty...Pretty....awful.
If you have to watch one, watch the original.
Unfortunately, this is a real misstep. Unlike some reviews, I don't have a problem with the colour blind casting. Nor do I mind the present day setting, although I felt the 200 years time shift too much. My issues are it's just badly paced and poorly directed.
The original had the luxury of setting the back story much better, particularly regarding the Wickens. Instead, we get some serious exposition by means of a puppet show. The whole thing is just too rushed. We know barely anything about Thomas, and it's obvious from our first meeting what the true nature of Mr Blunden is. Maybe this was all done make it more accessible to younger viewers, but I saw the original at a young age and understood it.
The acting? Tamsin Greig chews scenery, the kids are ordinary, Simon Callow is Simon Callow and Mr Gatiss himself? Ah. Oh dear. He is basically channeling Mickey from the Job Start scheme in The League of Gentlemen. Pretty...Pretty....awful.
If you have to watch one, watch the original.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesMadeline Smith, who features in this adaptation, played Bella in the original 1972 film.
- VerbindungenRemake of Die Wunder des Herrn B. (1972)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 30 Min.(90 min)
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen