Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I like Super-35mm. It tends to be a bit less resolute than anamorphic, but it also looks more natural.

 

The difference in detail/grain really isn't that big at all.

Michael Bay stopped using it cuz of the grain.

The great do Stephen Burum says the same thing.

It originally was used so films on home video wouldn't have to be pan and scan.

No excuse any more with ws television and digital formats.

But , some directors feel it gives period films " authentic" and still use it and Technisvope, of all things!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

We still need films to look good on home video cassette.

I miss the good old days when video stores rented VHS.and DVD.

If a S35  title was only available in 2:35 on DVD I could get the VHS instead. FIGHT CLUB...PANIC ROOM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched one of my favorite movies since the day it was released in 1997, once again in the absolutely stunning 4K transfer released a couple years back. The second of the two Jurassic Park movies, The Lost World. While JP will always be the greatest one, TLW is my favorite one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no idea this was still a thing.

 

I know that Cameron said that he preferred his movies in 4:3 rather than widescreen, having his films cropped for theatrical release (and the 4:3 version that was released for VHS was his “full” vision), rather than the other way around.

 

But that this has continued to be a thing from the early 90s to this day...

 

Titanic (1997)

4D0BB340-D1E5-4905-AFA8-E25ECEB1A5E6.jpeg

 

Gladiator (2000)

A4AB301C-2B8C-449C-9C69-4289E6FE1D2C.jpeg

 

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Pt2 (2011)

BA26FEE9-342E-440D-B835-E3DAB0751C21.jpeg

 

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

E19FD745-4FA4-4073-AD27-BFD5BE966550.jpeg

 

Avengers Endgame (2019)

A7CAFBBE-B489-45E8-BF53-A43CA706A746.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

No excuse any more with ws television and digital formats.

 

There's no excuse to shot 35mm anymore, in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

There's no excuse to shot 35mm anymore, in general.

 

Why not? It looks fine.

 

1 minute ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

I'll add that Leo's hair looks a bit campy and blow-dried in that scene.

 

Are you calling Leo a homosexual?! Mods?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

That just looks like bad cropping.

Yeah.

Usually with fx shots some of the edge of the frame is lost in full frame. Like AVENGERS

4 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

 

No, it was shot digitally.

I thought so.

I guess they shot : 1:78 and cropped for non- IMAX. theaters. Like AVATAR and DUNKIRK.

But, because the digital negative is much larger,   cropping to 2:35 does not result in the severe loss of image.

It's equivalent to the standard cropping of 1:33 open matte to 1"85 theatrical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

But, because the digital negative is much larger,   cropping to 2:35 does not result in the severe loss of image.

 

 

Its not the size or the resolution, its the cleanliness.

 

Digital sensors aren't necessarily bigger than film gauges. The RED Dragon has a sensor around the same size as Super-35mm. In terms of resolution (remember, sensor size ≠ resolution), Super-35mm is around 3K. So it takes a 4K bayer-patten digital camera like the RED One to match it.

 

However, 35mm is a relativelly grainy format, so of that 3-3.5K, at least 1K's worth is grain, and when you both crop the image and magnify it to play over a large screen, the size of the grain becomes a tell-tale sign that what you're watching had been magnified. Digital, even 1080p, doesn't have that problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chen, read me carefully.

I'll explain it ONE MORE TIME.

 

35 MM film has a !:33 aspect ratio. To show it in !:85 one quarter of the frame is cropped.

 

Digital has a 1:78 aspect ratio without cropping. So, it's app. 1/3 wider and 1/4 taller. It's the equivant of VistaVision which ran a 35mm frame horizontally thru the camera.

 

End of lesson. Forever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Some have a 2:1 aspect ratio; some have 2.2:1; some are 3:2.

 

It all depends on the individual camera.

Dolby Vision is 2:1.

I believe they use a larger negative than 1:78 - no cropping.

Aren't there Panavasion cameras that use anamorphic lenses on a 1:78 digital negative, to produce a wider image in the same way they do with 4:3 35mm stock?

37 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Some have a 2:1 aspect ratio; some have 2.2:1; some are 3:2.

 

It all depends on the individual camera.

3:2?😳

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ready Player One - this Spielberg is definitely enough fun to make you wish he hadn't bailed on Indy 5. A sci-fi action adventure that's a big ol' joyous celebration of popular culture.

Juan Of The Dead - when the zombie apocalypse hits Cuba, the titular character enterprisingly decides to start running a service whereby he and his motley crew will come round and kill your infected loved ones for a fee. Amusing comedy-horror.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shutter-island-4k.jpg

 

Shutter Island

 

This film gets a lot of flack here, but playing this again now after years, I can't help but admire how well-made it is. There's a whole lot of craftsmanship here. From Richardson's popping colours (and not in an indulgent way) to Scorsese's framing, this was put together by some real old pros. What ultimately holds it back is its unwieldy plot mechanics, winding around quite a bit before we get to its 30 minute exposition delivery in the finale, so its thrills come off a bit muted. It's all still pretty entertaining though. An underrated affair.

 

Also, anyone else find it funny that between this and Inception, DiCaprio was essentially playing the exact same character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, KK said:

Shutter Island

 

 An underrated affair.

 

 

 

No, it's overrated. More than a million votes resulted in a score of 8.2/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

 

No, it's overrated. More than a million votes resulted in a score of 8.2/10.

 

Nah. It's hardly ever part of the conversation when it comes to Scoresese's filmography or even the general social milieu. And it has a 68% on RT, if that means anything.

 

I don't know if IMDB scores are useful to measure anything really.

 

6 hours ago, Quintus said:

Anyone else seen Will Ferrell's Eurovision? It's one of those terrible but actually really good movies - derided by critics and loved by everyone else. Not every joke or daft set piece lands, but plenty do and this flick is frequently very funny. It's a big heartwarmer with absolutely hilarious song routines, which is really all you'd expect from a movie tribute to the absolutely dreadful Eurovision Song Contest. A very enjoyable Saturday night movie where Downton Abbey's Dan Stevens almost steals the whole thing from under Ferrell's nose.

 

sZvGIoC.jpg

 

 

Watched this some time ago. It was dumb but had some funny gags. It definitely needed more Dan Stevens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KK said:

 

I don't know if IMDB scores are useful to measure anything really.

 

 

 

But your baseless gut feeling is?  If more than a million people voting for a movie doesn't tell you anything I don't know what will. 

 

Shutter Island is great. - Koray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

RP1 zzzzzzz

 

From watching the trailer I was "nope, not for me! Next!"

 

Having caught it on TV some months later, it is indeed not for me, but its hardly as egregious as I thought, thanks to the Spielberg touch.

 

Its okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

It's a video game demo reel.

 

That's what I thought it would be; and it kind of was. But at least it was done well. I think, in the hands of a lesser director, it would have been much more of an out-of-control sensory-overload kind of movie.

 

Its more than a little bit long and meandering, though, and the voiceover doesn't help with that. Its also cloying in the way that a lot of Spielberg's popcorn movies can sometimes be. I like my movies a fair bit more solemn than this. This is like TheMatrix4kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

 it would have been much more of an out-of-control sensory-overload kind of movie.

 

 

 

That seems to describe it rather perfectly for me. Then again, I stopped watching halfway, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

No, it's overrated. More than a million votes resulted in a score of 8.2/10.

[ SHUTTER ISLAND] Brilliant film.

Up there with BULL as his best work!

8 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

That seems to describe it rather perfectly for me. Then again, I stopped watching halfway, I think.

I read the MAD Magazine parody.

Wise choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that it's so fixated on 70s and 80s pop culture (It just gets annoying) despite being about futuristic kids and yet clearly aimed at modern gamers--aside from Quint and I guess King Mark, the dated pop culture references and modern Xbox games just don't go together. It's too visually modern (A disaster to try to even look at, frankly--it's like an Autistic Gen Z kid has hijacked the screen playing some video game) for the old school audience that could appreciate the references and it's too dated and specific with its references for the kids these days, so it really has no audience except Quint and King Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single beneath video comment section or website article thread I've read in regards to RPO has been pretty much always highly positive towards the movie. Again, JWFan is guilty of overestimating its place in the cultural zeitgeist and the reality of its "truth". It is but a very small echo chamber, and Justin's views are little more than a fallacy within it, as supported by the small confirmation bias of his peers here. Again, this isn't some new revelation about this place in general, it has been said many times before.

 

Here's a quick example I just found:

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/ready-player-one-on-blu-ray-749-non-prime-1048-at-amazon-3192042

 

Plenty like and some couldn't stand it. But who cares? Well apparently, quite a few do. From my observations, RPO is another of those funny movies which elicits a fascinating response in its detractors - in that they get really annoyed at the idea of anyone actually liking the film, like a bunch of endlessly bothered film nerds. Oh the irony.

 

Btw, Steef is also a big fan of this film. Sorry Justin.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.