the 1968 or the 1936 version? (and why)
-
vicky_lc2001 — 1 year ago(April 02, 2024 03:33 PM)
I have to agree about the cavalry charge, I cannot imagine that scene being replicated today with all the horses deaths and that of his friend, with a sword through the heart when he fell off his horse. The charge remindid me of the one in Attack on Titan, I can only think the creator was very much influenced by the 1936 film.
-
vicky_lc2001 — 1 year ago(April 02, 2024 03:30 PM)
I just watched both recently, and have been watching some Errol Flynn films since I was told to give him a chance (over Stewart Granger). Imo the 1936 exceeds this quite significantly.
I have seen Flynn's other action films and tbh I think they're OK but not gripping unlike Granger. I take exception to this though, this and his Elizabeth and Essex are one of the best, a 9/10 rating for me. -
enochsneed — 18 years ago(November 20, 2007 05:43 AM)
Depends what you want - Hollywood derring-do, which has the charge take place on the North-West Frontier of India, or historic reconstruction (reflecting 1960's values) filmed on location. Two totally different films.
-
Sid-Blitzen — 17 years ago(July 23, 2008 09:17 AM)
"Hollywood derring-do, which has the charge take place on the North-West Frontier of India"
Not quite. The 1936 charge takes place in the Crimea, but erroneously attributes the reason for it to a Northwest Frontier incident. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 14 years ago(August 29, 2011 09:28 AM)
Beyond the title and the genre subject matter, not really comparable IMO. The 1936 version hasn't the slightest relation to historical fact, while the '68 version is all about historical accuracy.
That said, the '36 film is better made and definitely more entertaining than the later version. That film's depiction of the Charge, accurate or not, remains perhaps the best battle scene in Hollywood history (I might put a few non-Hollywood scenes like Bondarchuk's epics ahead of it), Errol Flynn is in top form and the story's entertaining enough if you accept it as fiction.
"I shall tread uncommon wary and keep my pepperbox handy." -
david_colbourne — 13 years ago(January 24, 2013 12:03 PM)
That's an interesting remark you make about the 1936 version being used to bolster US support for England who was fighting at this time. In 1936? I don't thing England was fighting anyone then, apart from small colonial conflicts, NW Frontier of India, etc.
I've never understood why most films are made, except of course to provide profit for the studios, so I don't think Warner were particularly concerned with supporting England in an unyet started conflict! -
huwdj — 1 year ago(March 05, 2025 10:20 PM)
Interesting question. The 1936 version has almost nothing to do with the actual event and is perhaps best remembered because it gave David Niven the title for one of his immensely popular autobiographies, Bring On The Empty Horses.
I think I saw the 1968 version in the cinema (probably a re-release for Saturday morning matinees) and loved it at the time.
But I'm wondering which version would seem the most dated now, the old B&W classic Hollywood or trendy 1960's British retelling. Worth seeing both again to decide.
I have always depended on the kindness of Strangers - and the bastards let me down!