RSS
 

“FLYNN” The Movie!

04 Sep

I hope all of you had a great summer so far! I have been absent for a while due to, visitors, vacation, travel and currently to a cataract operation on one eye, the other will follow .  Such is life in the fast lane – ha, ha – as they say!
A friend of mine, an Errol fan like me found this Australian movie called “Flynn” and send it to me and I am passing it on to you.  I am sure that some of you have seen it but maybe not all of you.  I am for one, who never had the pleasure and maybe there are more of our members who have been out of the loop with this one. I had an inkling that there must exist an Australian bio movie due to some excerpts I saw in the “Tasmanian Devil” and this is it –  “Flynn”.  Guy Pearce an Australian actor plays Errol, although he resembles more to Horst Buchholz than to Errol, and he is only 5'10 and that makes a difference too, but may that be as it is… We have to use our imagination!

You maybe have to download a special Player of which I am giving you the link to be able to view the movie.
Player link:
port25.technet.com…

that is if you have Firefox as your browser.  If you have another browser the movie link will either tell you what Player you need or download the “Free Window Media Player 11” .

The Movie link:

www.cinemanow.com…
or
www.cinemanow.com…
If you have problem let me know maybe I can help. The link also works on Internet Explorer!

It will be interesting to hear what you think of the movie.
Good luck and have fun watching it!
All the best to all of you,
Tina

— Tina

 
9 Comments

Posted in Main Page

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Dear Tina,
    I tried your link but it does not work, it says “Title Unavailable”. Also when I search cinemanow.com… it does not turn up this title. Can it be that even the link works only when you have firefox?
    Thanks!
    Inga

    Report this comment

     
  2. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    This movie is available on Netflix. It's not an accurate story and if you have read up on Errol Flynn you'll catch the errors. The costumes and scenry are great–but the acting isn't. I found some of the scenes insulting.

    Report this comment

     
  3. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    Hi Kathleen;
    I am agreeing with you 100%! A very inaccurate story where they mix up people, timing and events. They are not short of inventing scenes on top of it. I wonder why these movie producers would lend themselves to such shoddiness and factual errors?

    Report this comment

     
  4. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Hi Inga;
    You maybe have a different computer system. I sent you an e-mail and that maybe will help to get the Media Player you require.
    Good luck!

    Report this comment

     
  5. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    I am reading through the Blog to see what I missed!
    There is a posting “More Sad News for Flynn Fans”, I don't know what the circumstances are here but I gather from reading the postings that Patrice Wymore must own the life rights to Errol? Reading Patti's post saying “EF's story is in the public domain and his right to privacy and protection of his reputation is considered a personal right.”
    In other words she has the “Yea and Nea” to decide what can be produced about Errol?
    If that is so – how come that this movie “Flynn” could be produced? Would she give permission to such disparaging script?
    Just curious of what is what in the movie business?
    Maybe somebody will know and clarify this for me?
    Thank you!

    Report this comment

     
  6. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 10:02 pm

    Hey Tina, That is not actually correct as you've stated. Note that the following is not intended as legal advice. However, perhaps I can give you a brief overview of some issues.
    EF was a public figure. As we know he is deceased. So, one would not need to worry about invasion of privacy or defamation of his character etc. The right to sue for things like this is personal and was extinguished when he died. (For example, I would imagine you are familiar with the book depicting Errol as a Nazi spy etc. His daughters sued and got no where because Errol's rights were gone and they couldn't sue on his behalf–despite it being libel).
    Here in the states, the First Amendment gives an individual the freedom/right to write or speak about others. If you are in the “public domain” it is even harder to stop others from writing about you and to successfully bring suit for invasion of privacy and defamation (e.g., must prove malice). Still, it can be done if their reputation was damaged and/or privacy was invaded. This is of course assuming the subject is alive etc.
    Lets apply the above, in the case of EF, who is famous. So much of his life was “public domain” but there were private aspects too. However, when Errol died his right to sue went with him because this right was a personal right.
    Some states allow “publicity rights” to pass upon death. An individual who desires to write about Errol or wants to do a movie doesn't have to be concerned with invasion of privacy or defamation of character. Errol's Estate (of which Patrice most likely has the rights) may have “inherited” publicity rights. Various state laws exist regarding famous deceased public figures which provide for the deceased “right of publicity” to pass or descent to their heirs. Such rights would enable the heirs to bring suit for the commercial use of the public figures name, image, etc.

    Report this comment

     
  7. Anonymous

    September 4, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Hi Patti;
    Thank you very much for this detailed information, which I greatly appreciate. I am aware that Charles Higham couldn't be sued by the family or the estate because Errol was deceased and only he personally would have had the right to sue.
    I understand your explanations to a degree but there are some fine nuances which escape me.
    So you are saying Australia could make the “Flynn” movie because it falls in the same category as Higham's and Brett's books. But then, why did Earl Conrad changed the name to Crane Eden? Did he had to do so and if so – WHY – or did he just wanted to use the name Crane Eden? David suggests to Xaviant's to make his play fictional, but why? How is this situation different from Higham and Brett? It is here where I have a problem to understand the situation.
    Obviously I am missing something somewhere – but what? Sorry – I am just curious and always like to understand things in detail. If I find something I don't understand I get behind it. It's just my personality – always had a hungry brain.
    Thanks Patti – my best regards.

    Report this comment

     
  8. Anonymous

    September 5, 2010 at 12:51 am

    Hey Tina,
    I'll drop you and email and we'll explore all your questions.
    Patti

    Report this comment

     
  9. Anonymous

    September 5, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Thank you Patti that will be wonderful!

    Report this comment