The story is preposterous and somewhat implausible. It takes place in the 1970s, '73 or '74 during the waning days of the Vietnam War, but gives us a back story of some 20 to 30 minutes where we see two pilots, during the 1950s Korean War, parachute on Skull Island after a dog fight and knife fight before Kong makes an appearance. Back to the 1970s and John Goodman and Sam Jackson put together a team or expedtion of assorted characters and fly by military helicopters to the island.
CRAZY What Island off of Vietnam would be uncharted in the 1970s?,this is what I asked of Gilligan's Island with the castaways on an uncharted island. WW2 had been fought out there, every inch was charted. Once the copters get to the island and realize danger and monsters, why didn't they turn back.
COMPARISON This version of Kong and his fellow monsters made me think of and rewatch the 1975 film THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT based on Edgar Rice Burroughs novel. The two films are quite similar in storyline. Indeed the original Kong in 33 may have been influenced by Rice Burroughs's book as well as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's THE LOST WORLD.
All in all good entertainment, I give it half-n-half, a positive for the ok CGI effect, a negative for the wacky story that insults one's intelligence.
So after viewing "Three Faces East" and after hearing Courtenay(born in Massachusetts), he comes off sounding much like David Niven whom he favors physically. Many Broadway actors of the early 20th century tried to effect English accents as many plays originated in the UK. So you have American actors coming off trying to sound English or cultured with a mix New England accent.
"Three Faces East" had originally been a successful Broadway play later turned into a 1926 silent film produced by Cecil B. DeMille's PDC company and starring Jetta Goudal and Clive Brook.
As for the 1930 "Three Faces East" directed by Roy Del Ruth, it is a well preserved early talkie. It was later remade as "British Intelligence" by Terry O. Morse in 1940 with Boris Karloff and Margaret Lindsay. Both films were made by Warners and they both run very similarly, as if Warners just dusted off the 1930 script for the 1940 movie. If you've ever watched both versions of Warner's "The Dawn Patrol" (1930 and 1938) the similarity is close to how both "Three Faces East" and "British Intelligence" appear.
Alfred Shaughnessy(1916-2005) is the main producer/writer T&S and in 1990s commentaries on Updown, we learn he had grown up in large wealthy houses and knew about the era just preceding his 1916 birth, the prewar era in which T&S takes place. It seems the only person missing is Shaughnessy's writing partner from Updown, John Hawkesworth. On his own and right after Updown ended in 1975, Hawkesworth produced "The Duchess of Duke Street", with as much attention to period detail as Updown and T&S. When T&S began in 1978 Hawkesworth was about to produce the excellent WW2 series "Danger UXB", so his absence from T&S is understandable. The final episode has a 'Jules & Jim' nature to it joining Thomas and Sarah with a grieving landowner named Richard De Brassey whom Sarah falls for and wants to marry. Others have commented on how this episode ends and what was later to be contemplated with a second series. The finale ends ambiguously with Thomas and De Brassey going into a burning barn. We later see Sarah at a graveside attending the burial of one of them, the name is not on the wooden coffin or is surrounded by a wreath or laurel of flowers. Just my opinion Thomas faked his death in the fire and used the opportunity to flee Sarah, leaving her to marry De Brassey, and go to America as he always wanted to seek his fortune.
The film showcases several adult themes ie: profanity, gunshots, mild sex scene. It's amazing the film was released with a PG rating but remember this was 1982, two years before the Motion Picture ratings system was upgraded to include PG-13 and NC-17. The director keeps the film accurate to its 1877 time frame and shows elements in a western that are realistic such as the profanity and the renegade woman Clare who is a gunslinger, ?prostitute and adventuress. This film gets away with telling mature elements in Western that were not up to that time seen in conventional westerns especially going back to b/w films in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Had Timerider been made in the early 70s it might have been better received. If it had come out in the 40s or 50s as a film noir western it would certainly be a classic but with a compromise. There would not have been no cursing, no scrib gunshot wounds, the sex scene would not be explicit, though for 1982 the scene given is mild. More explicit sex scenes can be viewed in daytime soaps.
GRANDFATHER PARADOX An interesting aspect of this film is the application by some of the 'so-called' Grandfather Paradox. Hmmm! This supposedly applies when Clare and Lyle have sex and she questions him about the pendant around his neck. He tells her that his great great grandmother took it from his great great grandfather after an incredible night and the great great grandfather was never seen again. At the end of the film Swann is rescued by helicopter by the scientists responsible for transporting him to 1877. The head scientists tells Lyle that Clare cannot come back with them to 1982 by which time Clare snatches Lyle's pendant from his neck. When Clare takes the pendant this essentially repeats the story of Lyle's great great grandmother: END OF STORY!.....No mysterious paradox, Clare merely snatches the pendant. At this point many viewers who have seen the film think that Clare's actions reveal her to be Lyle's great great grandmother. I thought this too at one time but this is IMPOSSIBLE. Even if time-travel was real, Lyle Swann could not be his own great great grandfather or father his own great grandmother who would be the child Clare would conceive after the night of sex with Lyle. IMPOSSIBLE, even if time-travel were real a person could not literally go back in time and father his own ancestor. A person has to come from somewhere, he has to have a history. Swann could sleep with his great great grandmother, impregnate her and it would be a completely different individual. (Remember when the two of them were going over the Mark Twain books she tells Swann her real name, Clare Cygne, which if she was his great great grandmother, he should have known her name. Or it should have sounded familiar. A flag should have gone up in Swann's head as to her identity.)This puts an end to the Grandfather Paradox. ...The pendant, a seemingly valuable trinket as Lyle had been handed down to by his mother, is probably something from the 19th century and now it's returning to it's original time when Clare snatches it. If Clare is pregnant by Lyle she'll merely hand it down to her offspring and he/she will hand it down and so forth but there is no reason Lyle will ever see it again as it will be a totally different set of people and circumstances who will receive the pendant.
The film gets 3 1/2 stars out of 4.
The casting of this movie really doesn't work. Amanda Seyfried is too 'Little Bo-Peepish' to play Lovelace, though imho Lindsay Lohan wouldn't have worked either. Seyfried would have been a lot better cast as Carol Connors the goofy blond assistant to Reems in Deepthroat. Today Connors is known as the mother of legit actress Thora Birch. As cast Seyfried is too wide-eyed and innocent and visually doesn't resonate the hellish life Lovelace had lived by age 22 when DT was made. Lovelace had had an illegitimate child(given away for adoption) and was a veteran of numerous stag-loops and as such comes off world-weary. The recreation of some of the key scenes in DT are the only amusing, though momentarily, thing about this timewaster.