I actually enjoyed this film. One critic described it as a Disney fast pass ride. The story wasn’t anything special but it had some fun stunts and action sequences
Being a huge fan of The Poseiden Adventure growing up, I remember going to the cinema to see this and complaining that I didn't care if the characters lived or died because I didn't know them. I didn't know they cut 40 minutes from the start, and I think they probably destroyed the film insodoing. I'd love to see the full version that test-screened personally.
I think studio cut the character development scenes to improve the pace. Fans come to see the good stuff so that's why you don't know the characters. But most disaster movies have to get going in 20 minutes. This isn't the best disaster movie but isn't terrible either. Independence Day, Godzilla, day after tomorrow, 2012, Armageddon, volcano 🌋 and Dante's peak are all pretty enjoyable.
I hear most people refer to the kid in the original as "annoying." I've never personally found that to be the case, it's just what people tend to say when talking about the movie. I think it's interesting that the two of them are taking different approaches: in the original, his character is useful because he knows how to navigate the ship but that role is taken by Josh Lucas in the reboot leaving the kid with nothing to do but be a liability. The original displays a rather unrealistic bravery that borders on detachment from the situation, while reboot character behaves more like how you'd expect a child to act in this nightmarish scenario. I'm not saying one is a better route to take with this character, merely that it's noteworthy that they tried taking a different strategy both times.
...because it's a reflection of how current society views children & young adults. They are considered spoiled & catered to & ones who are now accomodated for at every turn. Most ( not all) are soley focused on technology & view life in general far differently than someone who grew up in the 60's, 70's & 80's, etc. These days most teens & 20 somethings barely can get a full sentence out without referring to someone else as "dude", "bro" or" brah". And that's just a minor peeve compared to the seemingly mandatory use of profanity to express themselves, etc. Its hard to accept the idea that the internet/social media has made so much progress in our daily lives & given us multiple ways to educate ourselves & our children. The internet offers a limitless amount of knowledge should we choose to use it at any moment, yet to hear the younger generations converse with others in reality they sound like a 3rd grader who has been held back 2 or 3 times. And before the hate starts rolling in as a response, I'm not saying this is everyone under 25 or less, or even that this is my own personal view on the subject. I'm stating this as a possibility as to why the child in the original movie was brave & courageous while in the newer remake the child was a whiny brat. In the many years between the original & the remake, there was a change in how children were being viewed by older adults & society in general. They were viewed as two entirely different people.
@@eviehammond9509 This is overflowing with so much "back in my day" contempt that it makes me wonder if you'd ever actually met a child the actor's age back in 2006 when this film takes place or if you're just using this comment as a platform to project about "society's ills" in the present 2020s. Smartphones didn't really even become widely available until 2007! I don't need to use hate or insults to point out the straw-man overgeneralization you paint of children bares little resemblance to the actual character in the film that I question how long ago (if ever) you actually watched the movie.
I didn't notice any shortcomings production-wise, and I found the quality of the performances were enough to make me care about the fate of the characters. The sequence in which everyone depends on the boy to unscrew that grate was extremely suspenseful, and the sometimes coldblooded actions of certain characters really caught me by surprise. The original was always my favourite disaster film, but I think Petersen's remake is quite underrated.
They marketed it as an epic disaster pic but it wasn't that epic. Still it wasn't terrible just not that great. I think Kurt Russell was in it and this guy never disappoints.
The leading "superstar" was supposed to be Josh Lucas. In the mid-2000s, he was being courted by major Hollywood studios as an upcoming 'big name' leading man. However, this didn't last for very long and after the costly failures of Lucas-led Stealth from 2005, and both Glory Days and the above-discussed Poseidon from 2006 he has never again appeared as a lead or co-lead on any big- nor medium-budgeted studio film. 😕 Something similar later happened to Taylor Kitsch in 2012. And there would for sure be quite a few more such hapless examples.
Yeah he was a big deal back then but haven't seen him in much lately. Stealth was hyped as a huge movie event playing on the AI trend but it wasn't that great a movie. Guess studios will only give you so many chances. And John Carter was a huge 💣 so studios won't give their lead another chance so he's been doing mostly supporting roles. Poseidon wasn't a bad movie but wasn't that great that's all. It should have done better.
It IS interesting how studios and agents tend to hype up "the next big star;" it's almost like they place bets on who that's gonna be and it's particularly fascinating when they seem to bet on the wrong horse. There's a lot of actors in this film whose careers fizzled out or seem to have stalled: Kevin Dillon is one, Mike Vogel (who, honest to God, I swore was Ryan Phillippe until I checked the cast again) is another, and while Emmy Rossum has been in some notable films, I don't think it's controversial to say her best-known work is from 15-20 years ago now. Agents seem in a rush to get these actors in big roles while their names are still hot commodities and if the factors (production, script, etc.) aren't right, that can stomp a budding career. Talent can usually help them weather a bad movie or two, but not always. And sometimes it's not a movie that does in a star, but rather their off-set antics. Armie Hammer has mercifully more or less exiled himself from Hollywood and is *anyone* gonna want to work with Rachel Zegler again after her terrible, bratty interview?
I know this movie didn't do quite good at the box office but I have loved it since the first time I saw it. That scene where they were trapped in that shaft with the water coming up always triggers claustrophobia and the part where Kurt Russell has to sacrifice himself (almost actually dying filming that part) was gold
I was a huge fan of the original, and was really disappointed with the remake. However, I have to agree with you - for me, those two scenes were the best in the film! I hadn't heard that Kurt Russell was actually in real danger of drowning in that scene. Yikes!
Another example of a remake that didn't need to happen. The original was impressive, especially for those of us who saw it when it first was released on the big screen.
The film may be a mess, but the effects are truly stunning and well made. Poseidon was actually nominated for an Oscar for this achievement, and speaking of that, it also appeared on the Guinness World Record book for the most details in the ship CGI.
I will always remember seeing the original at a drive-in with my parents when I was a kid. Looking back at it now, sure the film is a pure 70's disaster film. But that's why we love it.
Some of that cut footage might have explained how the kid ended up in the locked dog carrier. Poseidon's special effects and action were good, but it was hard to care about any of the characters. The only scene that really worked drama-wise was the one in the flooding ventilation shaft. It was suspenseful, and the claustrophobic female passenger becoming hysterical as the water rose was one of the few times the movie made viewers empathize with the characters.
For 2006, the CGI is some of the best ever created. 2024 Marvel CGI doesn't even compare with their basically infinte money and resources. Say what you will about the story and the characters, but this movie is absolutely incredible in terms of disaster esc action.
It also did not help there was another adaptation that was released roughly 6 months prior to Poseidon (2006). The Poseidon Adventure (2005) was a made for television miniseries that aired on NBC and more closely resembled the original novel. But it was updated for modern audiences: modern cruise ship that capsizes due to a terrorist attack. The production was able to take advantage of the fact it was a miniseries and fleshed out the various characters. The cast also included Adam Baldwin, Steve Gutenberg, Peter Weller, Rutger Hauer, and C. Thomas Howell.
Nah. That had some dramatic heft. The real dumb thing was killing off Valentine for some formerly suicidal old man and not even having the decency to to mull over it a little.
No. The death of Kurt's character was absolutely necessary. Without it, the adventure becomes too easy. Free of cost. The same thing happens to Gene Hackman's character in the original.
What this terrible film lacked was ANY CHANGE AT ALL from the original film, where other modern disaster films are largely original or have original elements. TERRIBLE script, characters, etc.
I enjoyed the movie for what it was since I already had both the 1972 and 2005 remakes already at home. I had a feeling the Character development was going to take a hit when I read it was a 90 min max movie… But it was my High Scool Graduation gift so it was free 😂
@Elliottblancher Well, it makes sense yeah, however, in the deleted scenes of the beginning, that child in the film is at the bridge "playing" with the controls of the ship and apparently due to some mess he made with the steering configuration the ship was taking longer to turn, but yk...
This film unfortunately was hacked down to within an inch of its life! It was actually less than 85 minutes from the end of the opening credits to the beginning of the closing credits….still, a pretty solid film, just WAY too expensive!
Cool video with some great info. Heads up, your movie footage is in the wrong aspect ratio. That's why it looks stretched. It's supposed to be wide screen/anamorphic.
Failure doesn't mean bad movie. It just faied to attract attention of viewers. I mean like large amount, very large. This movie has no Oscars, lost $100 mil, company bankrupted, director left Hollywood...it is a failure.
@@moviesgalore9947 this person put in a ton of research into the backstory of this movie and your comments just scream “I’ve got my own opinions and am not listening to ANYTHING you’ve got to say!” Yes, words have more than one meaning and there are multiple metrics of success. However, just because YOU like the movie doesn’t change the fact it was a flop at the box office, critics roasted it, it earned little or no awards, and it did nothing to help the careers of its actors. By even the most basic metrics, it’s hard to argue it’s a success, especially when compared to the 1972 original which achieved all of that and lasting cultural relevance. You didn’t even make an argument for the remake aside from your “nuh-uh!” response. There are plenty of films I like that aren’t great. They failed at the box office not because they were misunderstood or unappreciated, they just missed the mark in some way; still, I enjoy them on an artistic or entertainment level so they have personal importance, and that’s fine. But all the same, I have no problem admitting they aren’t great movies because I’m not hung up on how others view them. You can defend a movie without being overly sensitive about it. 🙄
I like this film. Usually watch it on new year's eve at home. I don't mind if any soapy backstories were cut. Being overlong is a mistake for a disaster film. In my opinion it *added* to the storyline that one did not know much of the characters. That is how they felt about each other, a group of strangers working for common good. The failure was likely because the disaster fad had once again passed by 2006. Also there was a competing quick buck tv miniserie of the same story.
I really enjoyed the remake version. My favorite scene of course is the ship flipping over . But I really liked the cast , I knew just about everyone .
If there's an adage there it's that the house always wins. Been a massive fan of Peterson (DAS BOOT (1981)a classic of the big and small screen ) i enjoyed posiedon which although far from perfect is good entertainment. Would like to see the cut 45 Minutes reinstated to see if it makes a stronger picture
Ironic considering the special effects (which the producers, and maybe even the director, were banking on as being the big draw for audiences) wouldn't have been available earlier... maybe. If they'd relied more on miniatures like Titanic did, maybe the ship would look more realistic. Hard to say for sure about the wave though, water has always been a difficult force to convincingly capture with effects. Regardless, it's like this film (at least, the version that was made) just didn't fit any time frame.
I recently watched a modern review of the 1972 original in which the major criticism was that it took too long to get to the action. I understand that perspective in this age of shrinking attention spans, but if we don't get to know the characters -- as we don't in the remake -- why would we care what happens to them?
I actually don't think that part of the film took too long, it was enjoyable to see the various characters we get to meet as well as give us time to appreciate the final hours of an aging ocean liner. Speaking on that last point, what makes the original one better IMO, is that Poseidon not only capsizes, but due to her age, she's vulnerable and weaker than the vessel in the remake, this is why I personally find the stakes to be higher beyond just the ship rolling over. Over time, various parts of the ship begin to fail, she begins to explode and weaken as a result, whereas the MS Poseidon despite not being able to handle capsizing, feels way too modern and stable. If the directors played a little more into the original, they could've based the Poseidon in the remake on the then yet to be scrapped SS Norway.
I would recommend the book by Paul Gallico it’s basically the 1972 version but with a few differences such as the trip being a full Month instead of a week. The captain in the book isn’t as cautious as the captain in the movie. The ship itself is a combie style ship half cargo and half passenger ship. How the capsizing of the Poseidon in the book is different from the movie. Also certain characters that survive don’t in the book
@@sooners2037 I've read the book and overall it's pretty good but I just can't recommend it. One part, which is mercifully left out of all adaptations, shows some VERY dated attitudes that are pretty indefensible. One character (not gonna say who) gets separated and sexually assaulted by a crew member. When he realizes she's a passenger, he freaks out because he's worried he'll lose his job (🤨) and she actually takes a moment to comfort her rapist! At the end, she hopes she's pregnant with his child. 🤢 It's a brief and wholly unnecessary moment where I guess the author thought the adventure needed some gritty realism, but boy does it sour an otherwise imaginative and interesting story. 🙄
Sounds like that says more about the reviewer than the film itself. The original introduces the players and building tension surrounding the top-heavy nature of the ship. If they're so riddled with ADHD that they can't handle basic narrative establishment, I don't care to see what films they're into.
"First time viewers complain of too many dark spaces." The ship is half submerged, half floating. So yeah, on a ship that has been capsized by a major rouge wave its gonna endure destruction which would lead to power of interior lighting to be lost. *C"MON!*
You mention Armageddon and Deep Impact as the beginning of the renaissance of Disaster movies…but the revival actually got started two years before in 1996 with the Stallone Flooded-Tunnel disaster film DAYLIGHT and the two volcano movies from early 1997, DANTES PEAK and, well, VOLCANO (although all 3 kinda flopped)
Well, you're missing the real reason the movie failed. It was because there was a TV movie of the same thing released a year earlier. No one wanted to go see a movie in the theater that they just saw for free on the TV. Besides, no boat movie has been successful since Titanic made the entire genre obsolete.
I think the only disaster flick I have ever thoroughly enjoyed was Twister. Others like Towering Inferno, the original Poseidon Adventure and Dante’s Peak I thought were okay but most of the others I just don’t seem to enjoy that much. I think it’s just that they got to extreme levels of idiocy… let’s train oil drillers to be astronauts, let’s have a team to drill into the earth to keep it spinning, let’s have the rock fight an earthquake (not THE Earthquake RIP John Tenta) oh and whatever 2012 was.
I have two memories of this movie. One: it wasn't remotely as good as the original. None of the characters were real (as opposed to the original) and the sets weren't at all as impressive as the original. It just felt like a SYFY knock-off. Two: it was kind of racist. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but there were only two hispanic characters that I remember, and both of them were like thieves or criminals or something. I would not be opposed to seeing the uncut version, although based on what I remember of a very clunky script, I doubt it would flesh out the characters much more, but the original was so iconic for fans of the genre. If you're going to remake a classic disaster movie, at the very minimum you have to have a good script, and JFC did the script suck on this one.
The moral of the story? Stop the remakes! Let's see NEW ideas. Yeah--remakes may seem "safe". But if a movie idea and movie was successful the first time, leave it be.
1. TWISTER was the genuine disaster film that brought back the genre 2. DEEP IMPACT was not a success 3. Wolfgang Petersen was chose because he directed not only big Hollywood movies, but also the 1981 classic DAS BOOT.
The script was bad. The characters were flat. The ham-fisted storytelling hurt the actors. You could watch the movie and know exactly who was going to live (the gay guy) and who was going to die (the homophobic lout whose death was so over-the-top). The same lame subplot of getting the gambler to fall in love with children nearly ruined the first Jurassic Park as well. Like every dumb script in these movies, they always forget that the number one priority should be NOT DROWNING or NOT GETTING EATEN BY DINOSAURS. It had none of the momentum of the original Poseidon Adventure. The special effects during the rogue wave scene were interesting, but that's about it.
I actually enjoyed this film. One critic described it as a Disney fast pass ride. The story wasn’t anything special but it had some fun stunts and action sequences
So did I...can't remember a thing about the characters (I think one was a ex-mayor?) but it's a fun hour and a half
@@savage751 One is a former mayor. Another was in the US Navy.
I like the film, too.
Actually, I would say it was Independence Day that brought back the Disaster Films in the 1990's not Armageddon and Deep Impact.
Yeah, I was going to say that.
Beat me to it.
More of a sci fi film than a disaster film.
That or Titanic
And "Twister".
Being a huge fan of The Poseiden Adventure growing up, I remember going to the cinema to see this and complaining that I didn't care if the characters lived or died because I didn't know them. I didn't know they cut 40 minutes from the start, and I think they probably destroyed the film insodoing. I'd love to see the full version that test-screened personally.
I think studio cut the character development scenes to improve the pace. Fans come to see the good stuff so that's why you don't know the characters. But most disaster movies have to get going in 20 minutes. This isn't the best disaster movie but isn't terrible either. Independence Day, Godzilla, day after tomorrow, 2012, Armageddon, volcano 🌋 and Dante's peak are all pretty enjoyable.
@@jonfreeman9682you cant beat the original with those actors and actresses. Its still one of the best ever
@@Mkelly300Shelley Winters swim is EPIC in itself!
One thing I didn’t like about this remake was the kid’s constant crying. In the original, the kid never cried and was probably the bravest character.
I hear most people refer to the kid in the original as "annoying." I've never personally found that to be the case, it's just what people tend to say when talking about the movie.
I think it's interesting that the two of them are taking different approaches: in the original, his character is useful because he knows how to navigate the ship but that role is taken by Josh Lucas in the reboot leaving the kid with nothing to do but be a liability. The original displays a rather unrealistic bravery that borders on detachment from the situation, while reboot character behaves more like how you'd expect a child to act in this nightmarish scenario.
I'm not saying one is a better route to take with this character, merely that it's noteworthy that they tried taking a different strategy both times.
@ You’re probably right.
"Its a cinch! Come on!!"
...because it's a reflection of how current society views children & young adults. They are considered spoiled & catered to & ones who are now accomodated for at every turn. Most ( not all) are soley focused on technology & view life in general far differently than someone who grew up in the 60's, 70's & 80's, etc. These days most teens & 20 somethings barely can get a full sentence out without referring to someone else as "dude", "bro" or" brah". And that's just a minor peeve compared to the seemingly mandatory use of profanity to express themselves, etc. Its hard to accept the idea that the internet/social media has made so much progress in our daily lives & given us multiple ways to educate ourselves & our children. The internet offers a limitless amount of knowledge should we choose to use it at any moment, yet to hear the younger generations converse with others in reality they sound like a 3rd grader who has been held back 2 or 3 times.
And before the hate starts rolling in as a response, I'm not saying this is everyone under 25 or less, or even that this is my own personal view on the subject. I'm stating this as a possibility as to why the child in the original movie was brave & courageous while in the newer remake the child was a whiny brat. In the many years between the original & the remake, there was a change in how children were being viewed by older adults & society in general. They were viewed as two entirely different people.
@@eviehammond9509 This is overflowing with so much "back in my day" contempt that it makes me wonder if you'd ever actually met a child the actor's age back in 2006 when this film takes place or if you're just using this comment as a platform to project about "society's ills" in the present 2020s. Smartphones didn't really even become widely available until 2007!
I don't need to use hate or insults to point out the straw-man overgeneralization you paint of children bares little resemblance to the actual character in the film that I question how long ago (if ever) you actually watched the movie.
I didn't notice any shortcomings production-wise, and I found the quality of the performances were enough to make me care about the fate of the characters. The sequence in which everyone depends on the boy to unscrew that grate was extremely suspenseful, and the sometimes coldblooded actions of certain characters really caught me by surprise. The original was always my favourite disaster film, but I think Petersen's remake is quite underrated.
I totally agree .
Blood diamond was a great movie. Never realized it didn't do well.
$100 mil budget vs $170 mil ww box office
I saw at cinema. I thought it commercial success
No, movie has to make 1:2 to break even, plus usually marketing budget is not included.
@@KinoReel-c4f the shovel scene made that movie
Studio lost
at least $20 million
on it.
Remember how this film was overhyped back in 2006 . Very aggressive promo campaign
They marketed it as an epic disaster pic but it wasn't that epic. Still it wasn't terrible just not that great. I think Kurt Russell was in it and this guy never disappoints.
This was a great movie, i enjoyed it a lot.
The leading "superstar" was supposed to be Josh Lucas.
In the mid-2000s, he was being courted by major Hollywood studios as an upcoming 'big name' leading man. However, this didn't last for very long and after the costly failures of Lucas-led Stealth from 2005, and both Glory Days and the above-discussed Poseidon from 2006 he has never again appeared as a lead or co-lead on any big- nor medium-budgeted studio film. 😕
Something similar later happened to Taylor Kitsch in 2012. And there would for sure be quite a few more such hapless examples.
Yeah he was a big deal back then but haven't seen him in much lately. Stealth was hyped as a huge movie event playing on the AI trend but it wasn't that great a movie. Guess studios will only give you so many chances. And John Carter was a huge 💣 so studios won't give their lead another chance so he's been doing mostly supporting roles. Poseidon wasn't a bad movie but wasn't that great that's all. It should have done better.
@@jonfreeman9682 Aye!
It IS interesting how studios and agents tend to hype up "the next big star;" it's almost like they place bets on who that's gonna be and it's particularly fascinating when they seem to bet on the wrong horse. There's a lot of actors in this film whose careers fizzled out or seem to have stalled: Kevin Dillon is one, Mike Vogel (who, honest to God, I swore was Ryan Phillippe until I checked the cast again) is another, and while Emmy Rossum has been in some notable films, I don't think it's controversial to say her best-known work is from 15-20 years ago now.
Agents seem in a rush to get these actors in big roles while their names are still hot commodities and if the factors (production, script, etc.) aren't right, that can stomp a budding career. Talent can usually help them weather a bad movie or two, but not always. And sometimes it's not a movie that does in a star, but rather their off-set antics. Armie Hammer has mercifully more or less exiled himself from Hollywood and is *anyone* gonna want to work with Rachel Zegler again after her terrible, bratty interview?
@@Unownshipper Ezra Miller would be another recent example.
@@subraxas Ooooph, that one's a big ol' can of "Yikes!" 🤢
Hope he takes a self-imposed exile from Hollywood.
I wish they release the full uncut version of the film.
A remake that was never asked for or needed
If the original stands apart, don't try and make a remake. The new Ben Hur also failed.
I know this movie didn't do quite good at the box office but I have loved it since the first time I saw it. That scene where they were trapped in that shaft with the water coming up always triggers claustrophobia and the part where Kurt Russell has to sacrifice himself (almost actually dying filming that part) was gold
I was a huge fan of the original, and was really disappointed with the remake. However, I have to agree with you - for me, those two scenes were the best in the film! I hadn't heard that Kurt Russell was actually in real danger of drowning in that scene. Yikes!
Another example of a remake that didn't need to happen. The original was impressive, especially for those of us who saw it when it first was released on the big screen.
The film may be a mess, but the effects are truly stunning and well made. Poseidon was actually nominated for an Oscar for this achievement, and speaking of that, it also appeared on the Guinness World Record book for the most details in the ship CGI.
I will always remember seeing the original at a drive-in with my parents when I was a kid. Looking back at it now, sure the film is a pure 70's disaster film. But that's why we love it.
They were also thinking about the success of "Titanic"
Some of that cut footage might have explained how the kid ended up in the locked dog carrier. Poseidon's special effects and action were good, but it was hard to care about any of the characters. The only scene that really worked drama-wise was the one in the flooding ventilation shaft. It was suspenseful, and the claustrophobic female passenger becoming hysterical as the water rose was one of the few times the movie made viewers empathize with the characters.
For 2006, the CGI is some of the best ever created. 2024 Marvel CGI doesn't even compare with their basically infinte money and resources. Say what you will about the story and the characters, but this movie is absolutely incredible in terms of disaster esc action.
i still love this movie idk why people were so upset over some movie, classic
This is a good disaster movie. Watched it multiple tines
This was a blind buy on DVD for me. The visual effects were great.
Love the original but this one is nice too. Entertaining disaster flick.
It also did not help there was another adaptation that was released roughly 6 months prior to Poseidon (2006). The Poseidon Adventure (2005) was a made for television miniseries that aired on NBC and more closely resembled the original novel. But it was updated for modern audiences: modern cruise ship that capsizes due to a terrorist attack. The production was able to take advantage of the fact it was a miniseries and fleshed out the various characters. The cast also included Adam Baldwin, Steve Gutenberg, Peter Weller, Rutger Hauer, and C. Thomas Howell.
Another dumb mistake was killing off Kurt Russell. Seriously 😬
Nah. That had some dramatic heft. The real dumb thing was killing off Valentine for some formerly suicidal old man and not even having the decency to to mull over it a little.
He only died at the end
No. The death of Kurt's character was absolutely necessary. Without it, the adventure becomes too easy. Free of cost. The same thing happens to Gene Hackman's character in the original.
@@SupremeGreatGrandmaster I was going to say that Russell was the Gene Hackman of this remake. I agree. It was a necessary sacrifice.
@@Clonetrooper1139 Thanks.
What this terrible film lacked was ANY CHANGE AT ALL from the original film, where other modern disaster films are largely original or have original elements. TERRIBLE script, characters, etc.
I loved this movie so much, I don't really get the hate for it
I enjoyed the movie for what it was since I already had both the 1972 and 2005 remakes already at home. I had a feeling the Character development was going to take a hit when I read it was a 90 min max movie… But it was my High Scool Graduation gift so it was free 😂
I heard that due to the cut scenes in the beginning, the viewers missed the reason of why the ship was taking too long to turn, anyway...
cause its a giant boat, they can't turn on a dime
@Elliottblancher Well, it makes sense yeah, however, in the deleted scenes of the beginning, that child in the film is at the bridge "playing" with the controls of the ship and apparently due to some mess he made with the steering configuration the ship was taking longer to turn, but yk...
250 million???? Jesus.
This film unfortunately was hacked down to within an inch of its life! It was actually less than 85 minutes from the end of the opening credits to the beginning of the closing credits….still, a pretty solid film, just WAY too expensive!
Loved this film. Much better than the 2005 TV series remake!
Wolfgang Peterson s Best film is Das Boot, You forgotnto mention his Best film... .
My voiceover guy misspronounced this German movie name and I just cut it :)
Cool video with some great info. Heads up, your movie footage is in the wrong aspect ratio. That's why it looks stretched. It's supposed to be wide screen/anamorphic.
Shouldn't have tried to remake The Poseidon Adventure!
Not a failure it was a good movie audiences enjoyed it.
Did you watch my video?
@@KinoReel-c4f Yes the movie lost money but I don't think that means Failure a lot of movies lose money but they are well made.
Failure doesn't mean bad movie. It just faied to attract attention of viewers. I mean like large amount, very large. This movie has no Oscars, lost $100 mil, company bankrupted, director left Hollywood...it is a failure.
@@KinoReel-c4f okay but still it"s a good remake of the original movie
@@moviesgalore9947 this person put in a ton of research into the backstory of this movie and your comments just scream “I’ve got my own opinions and am not listening to ANYTHING you’ve got to say!”
Yes, words have more than one meaning and there are multiple metrics of success. However, just because YOU like the movie doesn’t change the fact it was a flop at the box office, critics roasted it, it earned little or no awards, and it did nothing to help the careers of its actors. By even the most basic metrics, it’s hard to argue it’s a success, especially when compared to the 1972 original which achieved all of that and lasting cultural relevance.
You didn’t even make an argument for the remake aside from your “nuh-uh!” response. There are plenty of films I like that aren’t great. They failed at the box office not because they were misunderstood or unappreciated, they just missed the mark in some way; still, I enjoy them on an artistic or entertainment level so they have personal importance, and that’s fine. But all the same, I have no problem admitting they aren’t great movies because I’m not hung up on how others view them.
You can defend a movie without being overly sensitive about it. 🙄
I have no memory of this coming out, and I was in high school in 2006.
And there we got the 2005 tv remake called "the poseidon adventure" (imo, beside cgi great movie)
I like this film. Usually watch it on new year's eve at home. I don't mind if any soapy backstories were cut. Being overlong is a mistake for a disaster film.
In my opinion it *added* to the storyline that one did not know much of the characters. That is how they felt about each other, a group of strangers working for common good.
The failure was likely because the disaster fad had once again passed by 2006. Also there was a competing quick buck tv miniserie of the same story.
But Fergie was, naturally, Fergalicious in her appearance.
I really enjoyed the remake version. My favorite scene of course is the ship flipping over . But I really liked the cast , I knew just about everyone .
If there's an adage there it's that the house always wins. Been a massive fan of Peterson (DAS BOOT (1981)a classic of the big and small screen ) i enjoyed posiedon which although far from perfect is good entertainment. Would like to see the cut 45 Minutes reinstated to see if it makes a stronger picture
This movie was a decade too late
Ironic considering the special effects (which the producers, and maybe even the director, were banking on as being the big draw for audiences) wouldn't have been available earlier... maybe.
If they'd relied more on miniatures like Titanic did, maybe the ship would look more realistic. Hard to say for sure about the wave though, water has always been a difficult force to convincingly capture with effects.
Regardless, it's like this film (at least, the version that was made) just didn't fit any time frame.
@ wasn’t speaking of effects just off the popularity of disaster movies in the mid to late 90s it wouldve been much more successful in 96.
@@freezhollywood I understood that fully, I was merely adding to that point by noting a key aspect of the production: the cgi effects.
@ I def agree
I didn't realize it was a remake. Almost wanted to see it
I thought the remake was quite good as enjoyed both and the capsize scenes in both are very good.
Also there was a Poseidon adventure that came out a year before with rutger hauer and Steve Gutenberg.
I recall a USA Network 🚢 version. 1 film plot was terrorists & 1 was a engine or ship issue caused the damage. I did not watch either film, video.
When I was a kid, I always called this movie Titanic 2: Poseidon
I have never even heard of this movie.
Believe me, you're not missing anything. It was a real stinker.
Great news, in the next 3y, the genre will make it's comeback
The more I watch this movie the more I think, have these characters never heard of commercial aviation?
Still a great remake
Johnny Drama , Vinny Chase's brother was in this.
Forgot this film was made 😮
Best Ship Disaster Movie 💪 Mega Ship Poseidon ❤
...Titanic?
Good movie
I recently watched a modern review of the 1972 original in which the major criticism was that it took too long to get to the action. I understand that perspective in this age of shrinking attention spans, but if we don't get to know the characters -- as we don't in the remake -- why would we care what happens to them?
I actually don't think that part of the film took too long, it was enjoyable to see the various characters we get to meet as well as give us time to appreciate the final hours of an aging ocean liner. Speaking on that last point, what makes the original one better IMO, is that Poseidon not only capsizes, but due to her age, she's vulnerable and weaker than the vessel in the remake, this is why I personally find the stakes to be higher beyond just the ship rolling over. Over time, various parts of the ship begin to fail, she begins to explode and weaken as a result, whereas the MS Poseidon despite not being able to handle capsizing, feels way too modern and stable. If the directors played a little more into the original, they could've based the Poseidon in the remake on the then yet to be scrapped SS Norway.
I would recommend the book by Paul Gallico it’s basically the 1972 version but with a few differences such as the trip being a full Month instead of a week. The captain in the book isn’t as cautious as the captain in the movie. The ship itself is a combie style ship half cargo and half passenger ship. How the capsizing of the Poseidon in the book is different from the movie. Also certain characters that survive don’t in the book
@@sooners2037 I've read the book and overall it's pretty good but I just can't recommend it.
One part, which is mercifully left out of all adaptations, shows some VERY dated attitudes that are pretty indefensible. One character (not gonna say who) gets separated and sexually assaulted by a crew member. When he realizes she's a passenger, he freaks out because he's worried he'll lose his job (🤨) and she actually takes a moment to comfort her rapist! At the end, she hopes she's pregnant with his child. 🤢
It's a brief and wholly unnecessary moment where I guess the author thought the adventure needed some gritty realism, but boy does it sour an otherwise imaginative and interesting story. 🙄
Sounds like that says more about the reviewer than the film itself. The original introduces the players and building tension surrounding the top-heavy nature of the ship. If they're so riddled with ADHD that they can't handle basic narrative establishment, I don't care to see what films they're into.
"First time viewers complain of too many dark spaces."
The ship is half submerged, half floating. So yeah, on a ship that has been capsized by a major rouge wave its gonna endure destruction which would lead to power of interior lighting to be lost. *C"MON!*
Maybe try to present the film clips in their correct aspect ratios 😉
I didn't change anything...I am guessing what if mkv>avi format conversion whent wrong...
@ the images on all filmclips are clearly stretched horizontally.
Making movies involving a lot of water is always a bad idea. It’s difficult to do and miserable when you have to stay wet all the time.
Yes. Titanic, The Abyss.
You mention Armageddon and Deep Impact as the beginning of the renaissance of Disaster movies…but the revival actually got started two years before in 1996 with the Stallone Flooded-Tunnel disaster film DAYLIGHT and the two volcano movies from early 1997, DANTES PEAK and, well, VOLCANO (although all 3 kinda flopped)
Nothing like the original. Remake fell short. Oscar win for song .
Not a patch on the original, but I really liked this remake.
I liked TPA and this movie was when Emmy Rossum was on a roll, before going Shameless.. 😢
I went and saw it, it was enjoyable.
I liked TPA and tm was when ER was on a r, before going S... 😢
IWASI, it was enjoyable.
Too much CGI, short run time, and well......a remake. It was never going to be a huge hit.
I saw it in theatre. I thought it was good
It was a ok remake , not something I would buy to rewatch 👌👌👌
Poseidon wasn't a completely bad remake. Doesn't compare to the original though. Still watch TPA at least once a year.
Stop putting musicians past their five minutes in films. Period.
Well, you're missing the real reason the movie failed. It was because there was a TV movie of the same thing released a year earlier. No one wanted to go see a movie in the theater that they just saw for free on the TV. Besides, no boat movie has been successful since Titanic made the entire genre obsolete.
No backstory and build up was a hinderance but the characters were all bland types and skewed too young.
Its not that bad...but it feels like a 90s disaster movie. It might have been a success if they released it in the late 90s.
The original was at 20th Century Fox, how did Warner Bros get it?
Blood Diamond Failed ??? everyone was talking about this movie back then .
$100 mil. budget vs $172 mil. box office. Not enough to be profitable.
This movie is okay on the Big screen
Don’t fudge with the original
Why does it feel like this video was written by chat gpt
Video? Written? All human handmade.
I think the only disaster flick I have ever thoroughly enjoyed was Twister. Others like Towering Inferno, the original Poseidon Adventure and Dante’s Peak I thought were okay but most of the others I just don’t seem to enjoy that much.
I think it’s just that they got to extreme levels of idiocy… let’s train oil drillers to be astronauts, let’s have a team to drill into the earth to keep it spinning, let’s have the rock fight an earthquake (not THE Earthquake RIP John Tenta) oh and whatever 2012 was.
I never really understood why this film is so hated the way it his
hayy whats wrong with blood diamond??
Didn't make enough $$$ to be profitable.
this film made well
They had Fergie singing in this but they killed her off that quick, not even a lead singer would help this trash movie either.
i liked it
I really enjoyed this movie, I never watched the original but I watched it and didn’t really enjoy it
Fergie was a hottie in it
Bro, Peterson directed Das Boot.
I know, I cut this movie bcs my voiceover guy misspronounced it:)
lol. That’s fucking funny
I have two memories of this movie. One: it wasn't remotely as good as the original. None of the characters were real (as opposed to the original) and the sets weren't at all as impressive as the original. It just felt like a SYFY knock-off. Two: it was kind of racist. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but there were only two hispanic characters that I remember, and both of them were like thieves or criminals or something.
I would not be opposed to seeing the uncut version, although based on what I remember of a very clunky script, I doubt it would flesh out the characters much more, but the original was so iconic for fans of the genre. If you're going to remake a classic disaster movie, at the very minimum you have to have a good script, and JFC did the script suck on this one.
It wasn't a bad movie, Not great but not terrible
The moral of the story? Stop the remakes! Let's see NEW ideas. Yeah--remakes may seem "safe". But if a movie idea and movie was successful the first time, leave it be.
I'm a very loyal fan of the original Poseidon film, but this version is the worst, just like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Fergie was the best!
The movie just sucked. Period. As cheesy as the original was, it soared compared to this one.
1. TWISTER was the genuine disaster film that brought back the genre
2. DEEP IMPACT was not a success
3. Wolfgang Petersen was chose because he directed not only big Hollywood movies, but also the 1981 classic DAS BOOT.
Deep Impact $80 mil budget vs $350 mil box office - this was a success.
The script was bad. The characters were flat. The ham-fisted storytelling hurt the actors. You could watch the movie and know exactly who was going to live (the gay guy) and who was going to die (the homophobic lout whose death was so over-the-top). The same lame subplot of getting the gambler to fall in love with children nearly ruined the first Jurassic Park as well. Like every dumb script in these movies, they always forget that the number one priority should be NOT DROWNING or NOT GETTING EATEN BY DINOSAURS.
It had none of the momentum of the original Poseidon Adventure. The special effects during the rogue wave scene were interesting, but that's about it.
First 😂🎉