I'm a big fan of the 1970's Salkind Musketeer productions, and this installment is so poor in execution that it's hard to fathom how this got by the production meetings at Hallmark Home Entertainment, a production company known for quality product.
The problems with this production are mostly technical. Poorly directed by a man whose forte is staging action sequences, the dramatic potential is wasted and never fully realized in any of the scenes. The lead actors are mostly "pretty" models, with little performance potential, and even less acting ability. The veteran thespians hold their own in the support roles, but they're so horribly shot that whatever talent they bring to the film is wasted, that's on top of a lack of direction.
Technical merits DO NOT pass muster. Props and costumes are hit and miss, the lighting is unnatural (a reverse from the classic Lester productions), and the lensing is the absolute worst imaginable. It's as if the DP used one lens for the entire production (medium focal length no less), a far cry from the dramatic and sumptuous cinematography from David Watkin ("Chariots of Fire", "Moonstruck", "Catch 22", "The Memphis Belle") . It looked like the Hallmark people dumped a lot of money into sets and locations, but it's all positively wasted. You can see where the money was dumped into this production, but it doesn't shine in the least.
What we have here is another Hallmark mental-health-film, with the theme here touching on womens'-lib and tomboy issues regarding cross pollination of females crossing into male dominated roles.
For all of the opulence presented on screen in terms of set design, makeup, costumes, and locations et al, absolutely none of it works. Poorly directed, poorly shot, an unbridled placation to the female demographic, this production is so bad that it's no wonder the DVD wound up in the bargain bin. Look, I'm all for female themes in action films, but this is none of the kind. This is an exaggerated faux-romance married to one of the worst productions ever launched.
Yes, I could have shot a better film, and I say that without reservation. I never will, which is more the shame, but such is life. I can see how this thing was greenlit, but I wonder who was supervising production, and why no one took the time out to get some second opinions after watching the dailies. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but for all the money injected into this production, how is it the final product is so poor? The period is not captured in this period piece, and is in point and fact a real insult to producers from the 70s whom one would have thought impossible to insult given their own mercenary background in film production. However low the Salkind family is on the social ladder (because they are scum), they at least cranked out some really first class movies with their musketeer films.
As for the Hallmark folks, they may be first rate and trustworthy in business and all other matters, but on this particular production they failed. It's not entirely their fault, one guesses. They were probably sold on a director whose skills are supporting directors with a complete vision from drama, as opposed to investing in a veteran director and DP who could have brought a first class dramatic presentation to the small screen. And perhaps that too was another fatal mistake, for they should have gone for a theatrical release as opposed to a made for TV production. But I suppose that point has been rendered academic, for the film is what it is.
Watch at your own risk.
The problems with this production are mostly technical. Poorly directed by a man whose forte is staging action sequences, the dramatic potential is wasted and never fully realized in any of the scenes. The lead actors are mostly "pretty" models, with little performance potential, and even less acting ability. The veteran thespians hold their own in the support roles, but they're so horribly shot that whatever talent they bring to the film is wasted, that's on top of a lack of direction.
Technical merits DO NOT pass muster. Props and costumes are hit and miss, the lighting is unnatural (a reverse from the classic Lester productions), and the lensing is the absolute worst imaginable. It's as if the DP used one lens for the entire production (medium focal length no less), a far cry from the dramatic and sumptuous cinematography from David Watkin ("Chariots of Fire", "Moonstruck", "Catch 22", "The Memphis Belle") . It looked like the Hallmark people dumped a lot of money into sets and locations, but it's all positively wasted. You can see where the money was dumped into this production, but it doesn't shine in the least.
What we have here is another Hallmark mental-health-film, with the theme here touching on womens'-lib and tomboy issues regarding cross pollination of females crossing into male dominated roles.
For all of the opulence presented on screen in terms of set design, makeup, costumes, and locations et al, absolutely none of it works. Poorly directed, poorly shot, an unbridled placation to the female demographic, this production is so bad that it's no wonder the DVD wound up in the bargain bin. Look, I'm all for female themes in action films, but this is none of the kind. This is an exaggerated faux-romance married to one of the worst productions ever launched.
Yes, I could have shot a better film, and I say that without reservation. I never will, which is more the shame, but such is life. I can see how this thing was greenlit, but I wonder who was supervising production, and why no one took the time out to get some second opinions after watching the dailies. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but for all the money injected into this production, how is it the final product is so poor? The period is not captured in this period piece, and is in point and fact a real insult to producers from the 70s whom one would have thought impossible to insult given their own mercenary background in film production. However low the Salkind family is on the social ladder (because they are scum), they at least cranked out some really first class movies with their musketeer films.
As for the Hallmark folks, they may be first rate and trustworthy in business and all other matters, but on this particular production they failed. It's not entirely their fault, one guesses. They were probably sold on a director whose skills are supporting directors with a complete vision from drama, as opposed to investing in a veteran director and DP who could have brought a first class dramatic presentation to the small screen. And perhaps that too was another fatal mistake, for they should have gone for a theatrical release as opposed to a made for TV production. But I suppose that point has been rendered academic, for the film is what it is.
Watch at your own risk.