At first, it may seem that this film was originally shot with a Goblin translation, and its Greek part was shot at the same time, in 1993, as a parody of the peplum genre (a large-scale film about antiquity). In fact, this is the real-life film Hercules, Samson, Matsyst and Ursus: Invincibles (1964). It exists on its own, and it was
more
At first, it may seem that this film was originally shot with a Goblin translation, and its Greek part was shot at the same time, in 1993, as a parody of the peplum genre (a large-scale film about antiquity). In fact, this is the real-life film Hercules, Samson, Matsyst and Ursus: Invincibles (1964). It exists on its own, and it was crammed into comedy, halved, but generally without loss of content. Thus, in Hercules Returns there are only 20 minutes of original content - a story about filmmakers. In some places there are good jokes and even some acting in the microscene, but in general this is a frank and undisguised parasitism on an old film. Don't understand why. In Western Wikipedia, I read that in Australia in the 70-80s, such vandalism of old films was popular and in demand, and this film became almost the pinnacle of the genre. They made less than a million dollars, and they made 300,000 dollars, so the movie failed, which is good. Comedies, parodies should be, and even moderate hooliganism has its place, and what should not be is vandalism and parasitism. But the biggest drawback of the film is the "Goblin" part of the authors did not take out at all. When this kind of work is done qualitatively, a different film with a different plot is made. Anyone who has watched the epic re-voicings of Terminator 2, The Matrix, Avatar understands that the whole point and all the humor is that the film changes beyond recognition. And I don’t need to be reminded that this film was 10-15 years old, and it’s not such a cultural difference that it’s too old. Here, the content of the 1964 film remained virtually the same as in the original, only adding modern buzzwords and funny Australian voices. It's not funny and very stupid. In the framing plot, the villain is frankly ridiculous. He's even meaner and stupider than Burns from The Simpsons. He rules his movie empire as an evil villain from a cartoon. In front of a bunch of people, he goes to fight to the death with the director of a small cinema, in principle unable to compete with him. He is the one who gives himself time and loses everything. I don't.
|