A French count is in England to marry the princess. She's killed. A wizard helps him to time travel back before the murder - except they end up in Chicago, April 2000. A descendant helps him. He looks for the wizard to return to the 1100s.
A medieval nobleman and his squire are accidentally transported to contemporary times by a senile sorcerer. He enlists the aid of his descendent to try to find a way to return home, all the... See full summary »
Knight Godefroy de Montmirail and squire Jacquouille are stranded in 1793. Using trickery to break free from their shackles, both perilously partake in the Montmirail family's run away in the quest for an exiting time-shift.
A knight and his valet are plagued by a witch, and to repair the damage, they make use of the services of a wizard. However, something goes wrong and they are transported from the twelfth century to the year 2000. There, the knight meets some of his family, and slowly learns what this new century is like. However, he still needs to get back to the twelfth century to deal with the witch, so he starts looking for a wizard.Written by
Maarten Hofman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
There are several differences between the UK cinema cut and the French DVD cut of the film. First of all, there is an additional 2 minute scene at the start of the French cut, where Julia donates part of the castle to the museum. Then, the first few scenes of the UK are seen, but in a different order. Additional short sequences are also included, but the next big change is the ending. The four final sequences are now seen in 6 sections, in the order of Jean Reno's character returning to the palace, Hunter being sent back in time, Andre and Angelique driving to Las Vegas (slightly shortened), Julia at the castle (which is slightly extended), Thibault giving Roseline the hair clip from Julia, and then, as the credits start to roll, we see Hunter in the middle ages, and suddenly, we are on the film set, with a VERY unhappy actor. As the credits continue, we see various clips from the film, and right at the end, an outtake. None of these end credits appear in the UK. See more »
they're visiting? They'd better going away and never coming back
When a French movie is a huge commercial success, it's often followed by one or a few sequels. Sometimes, it happens that an American version is made. It was the case for "un indien dans la ville" a movie made by Hervé Palud in 1994 and transposed in an American version which was released in 1997. But these American versions are generally a waste of time and (why not?) a loss of money. This is what you could put forward by watching this listless and not very inspired remake of the French movie: "les visiteurs". Here, Jean-Marie Poiré contents with taking back the funniest elements that assured "the visitors"'success; sometimes in similar circumstances. For example, the curator of the museum in which our "visitors" appear replaced the black postman in 1993. So, the comical effects don't work and the movie creates very few surprises. Concerning the cast, well it's quite disparate: if Jean Reno keeps on talking with smart and noble terms, he seems less imposing and authoritarian than he was eight years ago. Christine Applegate is far away from Valérie Lemercier's performance whereas Matt Ross hasn't got Christian Bujeau's furor and exasperation when he's got to face "the visitors"' disasters. Nevertheless, Christian Clavier is always entertaining, especially when he's provoking disasters, in spite of very few new gags. In another hand, when we learn that Matt Ross aims at grabbing his wife's fortune with a little help from his lover, the movie becomes quite conventional. But with Reno's presence and bravery, Applegate will know how to make her husband leave. At the end, the movie lacks of punch and rhythm. It's not a bad movie but simply an useless remake. It's high time Reno and Clavier had a well-deserved rest.
11 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this