what was great about this film, if you don't mind?
-
ozgurozhan — 21 years ago(February 28, 2005 02:14 AM)
"Hominids at these stages did not really co-exist togather"!!!! Infact, they did co-exist togather. There are plenty of evidence that Neanderthals, and Early Humans competed each other for more than hundered thousand years!. Especially in the middle east.
-
englisher101 — 21 years ago(February 09, 2005 05:13 PM)
Exactly. The movie should be taken for just what it is and nothing more. At least it avoided the schmaltz of "The Bear."
The Bear is a family kind of film though. Still, I think it's more genuinely touching and far less schmaltzy than, say, Steven Spielberg's movies.
I personally think both are great.
I also watched this movie when I was a young teenager, and I think that this movie tends to have a much wider appeal to a younger audience. I watched it again recently and it just didn't have the same effect on me as a hardened adult (and no, I'm not talking about the nudity and sexuality). The movie challenges your imagination, and, as an adult, my imagination no longer runs freely. For instance, when I try to play MMORPGs, I just can't role-play characters anymore - it just seems like a bunch of boring BS. I can't get into the moment. -
Memories-Of-Murder — 18 years ago(March 13, 2008 01:07 PM)
I'm an adult and i liked this movie better then i did when i was a teen, and i loved it as a teenn. And i love it better now because i'm an adult.
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?" -
ChrisH33 — 21 years ago(March 28, 2005 04:07 AM)
For some reason I managed to miss seeing this film when it was first released, yet it still has impact some 20 years later. The DVD extras offer an invaluable insight into the making and meaning of the movie which the original cinema audience did not have access to. The effort put into shooting the movie by both actors and crew was extreme and the final result is impressive. There were many difficulties to overcome;locations had to be changed at short notice, animals did not behave on film, and remember - for many of the actors this was their first appearance. Just listen to the dialog tracks how the lion trainers (standing in for the actors) were stuck up a tree for 8 hours because the animal skins they were wearing smelled a mite more tasty to the lions than perhaps they should
And the elephants dressed as mammoths which made a run for a warm tent containing filming equipment trampling all the cameras in the process :-))
The switch in locations from Kenya/Canada/Scotla nd did not work for me, in the space of a few footsteps we found ourselves travelling from Scottish moorland to temperate rain forrest to tropical savannah. I'm not convinced the story benefitted from this.
The director gained good advice from experts on body language and primitive dialog and this holds up well throughout the film. Ron Perlman in particular was brilliant and his actions are just so reminiscent of observing the mannerisms of silverback gorillas! Others were a bit more strained and gave the impression of ponderous slowness. If authenticity was being sought you only have compare with the larger primates for speed of movement and aggressive behaviour - behaviours which would certainly have been present in our ancestors.
It is easy to nit-pick details, for example; the stupidity of entering a cave containing a crying bear cub and which would also certainly have smelled strongly of 'bear' - our ancestors would quickly have died out if they were in the habit of doing dumb things like that!
The director aspired to make a movie which was extremely challenging in it's day. With modern techniques most of the special effects and animal appearances could be made to appear more realistic, but the film would also lose it's essential 'grittyness' which you only get from placing actors in uncomfortable and difficult situations. Real mud, dirt, bogs, sharp stones and hot&cold weather. Overall I think Quest For Fire is a great film and has lost none of it's appeal over 23 years. It deserves to be viewed many times - and don't forget to listen to those fascinating extra dialog tracks on the DVD! -
gotugoodrookiebiotch — 20 years ago(May 09, 2005 06:19 AM)
There are so many inaccuracies in this movie it's hilarious. I found myself laughing throughout this entire moive because of how stupid the whole thing was. The elephant/mammoth scene in particular. There are also too many consistancy errors to count. The main characters are ridiculously stupid one scene then quite smart in the next. My friend somehow likes this movie and had me watch it. I don't mind about the dialouge not being understandable, but subtitles or something. If they have the language wouldn't it make sense to subtitle it. Granted the whole story is understandable but I have seen the same story layout many times before, it seemed similar to The Warriors for some reason to me. The cinematography is good and the acting is either really good or laughably bad, depending on how you look at it. I actually kept time on the movie to see how much longer there was every five minutes.
This is blood for blood and by the gallons. It's the old days, the bad days. They're back -
bleedin_fingers — 20 years ago(July 28, 2005 12:43 PM)
What was so great about this film for me, is that it is unarguably THE greatest documentary ever made. I was astounded by the courage it must have taken for the documentary makers to go out and film among these primitive people from so long ago. Kudos to courageous, innovative, and intelligent documentaries. If only there were more like this.
Living is easy with eyes closed- The Beatles