Agrega una trama en tu idiomaFor 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... Leer todoFor 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.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 3 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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 really wanted to see this as I loved the original. However, although this was watchable and modern kids may like it, it didn't have the magic of the original.
I found that the script was almost identical to the original but the acting was poorer. I thought Mr Blunden was well cast and so was Sara. Mrs Wickens was OK as well and Bella. The rest, not so much. To be fair, Lynne Frederick would be a hard act to follow as was the original actress who played the mother. There was just something about the original family that was missing in this adaptation.
I didn't like the fact that it was set in modern times, except when the children went back to 1821. The original was set in the early part of the 20th century and there was a magic to the Xmas scenes even though they were poor. The original had atmosphere. This one didn't. There was nothing new about it other than setting it in modern times. It was also too PC. Casting for the sake of it rather than what would have been more appropriate.
Overall, this was simply a cheap, lazy copy with no originality. I recommend the original 1972 version and the book. I believe the original book is being released again. If it's still in it's original format that will be fine. If it's been edited to suit the PC agenda then I recommend getting an old copy from somewhere.
I found that the script was almost identical to the original but the acting was poorer. I thought Mr Blunden was well cast and so was Sara. Mrs Wickens was OK as well and Bella. The rest, not so much. To be fair, Lynne Frederick would be a hard act to follow as was the original actress who played the mother. There was just something about the original family that was missing in this adaptation.
I didn't like the fact that it was set in modern times, except when the children went back to 1821. The original was set in the early part of the 20th century and there was a magic to the Xmas scenes even though they were poor. The original had atmosphere. This one didn't. There was nothing new about it other than setting it in modern times. It was also too PC. Casting for the sake of it rather than what would have been more appropriate.
Overall, this was simply a cheap, lazy copy with no originality. I recommend the original 1972 version and the book. I believe the original book is being released again. If it's still in it's original format that will be fine. If it's been edited to suit the PC agenda then I recommend getting an old copy from somewhere.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaMadeline Smith, who features in this adaptation, played Bella in the original 1972 film.
- ConexionesRemake of Los fantasmas de la casa encantada (1972)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 30 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta