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

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

I wish I got to check out DotPotA.

It's a good film, but why was it in 1.85, for goodness' sake?

No, not at all.

Sexy Beast is a slick and fast gangster film with a load of dialogue.

Under The Skin is almost a silent film at times. It's beautifully shot and edited.

Jason, what did you think of the baby on the beach?

I saw "Sexy Beast" in a double-bill with "The LImey", and it worked. The thing I remember about SB is Ben Kingsley's (sorry, Sir Ben Kingsley's) rant...oh, and Winstone's yellow Speedos - definitely not recommended.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I wish I got to check out DotPotA.

It's a good film, but why was it in 1.85, for goodness' sake?

Does it matter?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

Only that it seems "out of sync" with the rest of the (2.35) films. I just wasn't expecting 1.85, that's all.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I don't really care as long as the director has composed the image for the frame appropriately.

[Jay 37,374]

I ended up seeing This Is Where I Leave You, Tusk, and Lucy. I'll write about them tomorrow, but surprisingly Tusk was the best and Lucy was way the worst. What a mess of a movie that is...

[A24 4,346]

I don't really care as long as the director has composed the image for the frame appropriately.

Looks who is talking! You don't like 2.35:1, Drax. I have it on record.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's the black bars on his Sony Trinitron! They speak to him!

[A24 4,346]

It makes his tiny screen even tinier.

Alex - who even liked black bars in the heyday of CRT

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I don't hate them, they're obviously unnecessary if the director reckons the 1.85:1 frame suits his vision more.

You "true film lover" nuts just have a fetish for letterboxes.

[Sweeping Strings 2,364]

Agreed on Lucy, Jay ... by the end, it was all I could do to stop from laughing hysterically. Preposterous rubbish, even for sci-fi.

[Hurmm 91]

I just watched a film called COHERENCE. And wow, its a sly little film with a high concept. It all takes place in a house at night when a comet passes and strange absurdities begin to manifest. That's all you should know going into the movie really. At less than 90 minutes long it's an engaging, claustrophobic little headscratcher with an air of dread.

Recommended indeed. The last time I felt like this was watching Triangle/Timecrimes. Or when I was having one of my lucid nightmares.

[A24 4,346]

I don't hate them, they're obviously unnecessary if the director reckons the 1.85:1 frame suits his vision more.

1.85:1 is perfect for comedies and romantic movies.

Aliens should've been framed for 2.35:1. The 1.85:1 gives it that Verhoeven feeling. Fortunately for the world, Cameron framed Termy 2 for 2.35:1!

[Hurmm 91]

I don't hate them, they're obviously unnecessary if the director reckons the 1.85:1 frame suits his vision more.

1.85:1 is perfect for comedies and romantic movies.

Aliens should've been framed for 2.35:1. The 1.85:1 gives it that Verhoeven feeling.

I agree to an extent. But it really depends on how the director wants to frame it, and how. For example Children of Men looked absolutely at home in 1.85. 2.35 brings the accustomed cinematic look but 1.85 brings that gritty realism that's harder to achieve with 2.35.

Verhoeven shoots his movie in that faux TV news satire fashion and 1.85 suits that style. Hence RoboCop and Starship Troopers. He dumps that in favour of 2.35 when he's shooting in a more traditional story mode, like Black Book or Basic Instinct.

Something like Avengers would have been better in 2.35 though personally.

[A24 4,346]

I don't think Aliens (1.85) is more gritty and realistic than Alien (2.35). More than anything else, the set design and Polish monochrome , hand-held photography were responsible for COM's grittiness. But you're right, Cuaron and 1.85 go well together.

YES! The Avengers would have been better-looking in 2.35:1. Look at Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Guardians Of The Galaxy!

[Hurmm 91]

Well I wasn't talking specifically about Aliens. Neither do I think its gritty, but it is grittier than Alien. And gritty doesn't equate to realistic, in a photographic sense. The sets and photography in Alien are immaculately realistic, but the way it's shot doesn't lend to it being a gritty or "realistic" in the sense that what we see on screen is what we would see from our POV if we were actually there. Certainly in that sense Aliens trumps it (and no, I'm in no way saying that Aliens betters Alien in style). And of course, no one is saying the aspect ratio itself determines how gritty a film looks. OF COURSE the photography and set play a huge part as well.

[A24 4,346]

Alien not gritty?! Only at JWfan! I can't tell you how many people refer to it as being "dark and gritty". Scott practically invented "dark and gritty".

[Hurmm 91]

I wouldn't describe Alien as gritty.

Not a flaw, mind. It's one of my favourite films.

Maybe I just have a different definition of gritty.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Film director thought bubble: "I have to shoot this film in 2.35:1 - the black bars on people's TVs will look awesome!"

[A24 4,346]

That actually sounds believable. The time directors only think of the theater is long gone.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Talk about losing perspective!

[A24 4,346]

Quite the opposite! The perspective has broadened, Drax. I know it was different 40 years ago, when we usually saw a movie once, but we now watch movies where and when we want. It has become accessible. I think directors are very conscious of that. Generally, I think we're closer to the action now.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Why have black bars when you can look at an entire black screen when it's switched off??

Viewer off!

[Matt C 455]

The Equalizer

It plays like a bad parody of Denzel Washington's earlier better films (or an unofficial sequel to Man on Fire, take your pick). It peaks in the first act, then drags on and on as Denzel's character systematically and gruesomely offs Russian mobsters. There's various 'cool' cinematic shots Antoine Fuqua uses (including a cliched indoor climax involving a sprinkler system), but they're done better in the films he continually rips off. The bright spots are the scenes with Washington and Chloe Moretz, which belong in an entirely different and better movie. And Harry Gregson-Williams' score is outright terrible.

Avoid this. Fuqua and Washington have done better, and it doesn't alleviate my concerns about them pairing up for that Magnificent Seven remake.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

Why have black bars when you can look at an entire black screen when it's switched off??

Viewer off!

Why not just buy a 2.35:1 television?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Then you get black bars on the side

[Quintus 5,399]

God what a boring debate.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

We need Star Wars 7!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

Then you get black bars on the side

Only if you watch something in 1.85, or 1.33, or 1.66.

God what a boring debate.

It's been hardly any debate at all.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Why have black bars when you can look at an entire black screen when it's switched off??

Viewer off!

Why not just buy a 2.35:1 television?

Then you'd have to zoom in existing 2.35 movies, therefore losing image quality.

[King Mark 3,631]

Why zoom it, if the sceen fits the 2:35 movie exactly

Are there many TV models with a 2:35 frame?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

Yes. I saw one which was made by Sony, a few years ago, at a hi fi show, but I have never seen them on sale.

[King Mark 3,631]

I see, what's the point of this discussion then

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Why zoom it, if the sceen fits the 2:35 movie exactly

Are there many TV models with a 2:35 frame?

Because the black bars are hard encoded into the 16:9 frame. Therefore if you watched this image on a 2.35:1 TV, you'd have to zoom the image in to eliminate the bars.

It's like watching a 4:3 letterbox 1.85:1 DVD on a 16:9 TV. You need to zoom it to make it fit.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

I don't hate them, they're obviously unnecessary if the director reckons the 1.85:1 frame suits his vision more.

1.85:1 is perfect for comedies and romantic movies.

Aliens should've been framed for 2.35:1. The 1.85:1 gives it that Verhoeven feeling. Fortunately for the world, Cameron framed Termy 2 for 2.35:1!

It's odd that you would say that 1.85 has a "Verhoeven feeling", as he shot "Basic Instinct" in

[King Mark 3,631]

Why zoom it, if the sceen fits the 2:35 movie exactly

Are there many TV models with a 2:35 frame?

Because the black bars are hard encoded into the 16:9 frame. Therefore if you watched this image on a 2.35:1 TV, you'd have to zoom the image in to eliminate the bars.

It's like watching a 4:3 letterbox 1.85:1 DVD on a 16:9 TV. You need to zoom it to make it fit.

I see, then there's absolutely no need for 2.35 TV's because the bluray/DVD is basically not fully compatible

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

I see, what's the point of this discussion then

I have just Googled a 21.9 "superwide" monitor, which is on sale in the U.K for about £200.

[King Mark 3,631]

yeah, but by what Drax says if you have to zoom your movie than there's no benefit

It's better to by a larger 1:85 TV so 2.35 movies look big enough

I admit on my 47 inch TV games, TV and 1.85 movies look big enough but for 2.35 I wish the screen was a bit larger (it's not the black bars that bother me)

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

Right. So buy a 2.35 telly, why don't you?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

This review explains it better.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/Philips-Cinema-21-9-56PFL9954H-56in-LCD-TV-review-3

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

On second thoughts, I'll stay with a 1.85 oojamaflip.

[A24 4,346]

Luckily, I'm not like Drax, for I would hate most of my favorite movies because of black bars.

Here in Europe, Phillips tried to push the 2.35:1 TV. It didn't catch on.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Luckily, I'm not like Drax, for I would hate most of my favorite movies because of black bars.

What are you on about?

[Sweeping Strings 2,364]

The Equalizer - it's a tad overlong, only faintly resembles the TV show and nothing in the score is anywhere near as memorable as Stewart Copeland's fabulous original theme ... but I still found it reasonably entertaining.

[Jay 37,374]

This Is Where I Leave You

Not much to say about this movie. It's nothing special whatsoever, but not horribly offensive either. It's just another one of those large ensemble family dramas, where all the characters have some kind of strife they overcome with or thanks to each other by the end of the movie. At least in this one, a lot of the story threads end somewhat ambiguously, it's not all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The best part of the film is the cast they've assembled - Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Corey Stoll and Adam Driver play 4 siblings who learn their father died at the start of the movie, and they all return home for the funeral and a week long Shiva. Jane Fonda is their mother, Kathryn Hahn is Stoll's wife, Connie Britton is Driver's girlfriend, Rose Byrne is Bateman's high school sweetheart, Ben Schwarz is the family's rabbi, etc.

I only saw this because it was scored by Michael Giacchino, and lined up time-wise with the next film I wanted to see. I enjoyed Giacchino's score - whoever said there was only fifteen minutes of it was wrong. There was a lot of cues actually (though there is also a lot of source songs). Most cues are either warm strings for sentimental / bonding scenes, or plinky piano type stuff for moments of reflection type scenes. Nothing groundbreaking, but I'd certainly love to have an OST CD / digital download / session leak / anything. The end credits did feature a 5 minute or so suite at the very least.

[Jay 37,374]

TUSK

You know, this wasn't too bad! For those who don't know, it stars Justin Long and Haley Joel Osment as two podcasters, their show is called "The Not-See Party", so named because Justin Long goes out and talks to people and then tells Haley Joel about it, hence he does Not See the people in question. A trek to Canada to interview someone for the show goes wrong for Justin Long, but he thinks he's salvaged the trip when he finds a notice in a bar's bathroom from a man who will share stories of his sea adventures in exchange for free room and board. Things just go wrong for Justin Long from there, and soon Haley Joel and Long's girlfriend are teaming up with a french detective played by an almost-unrecognizable Johnny Depp (uncredited) to find him.

The best part of the film was the acting - not only is Johnny Depp great, but the old man Justin Long goes to interview is played by Michael Parks, who I was completely unfamiliar with, but he was really really great. Almost his entire performance is long Kevin Smith penned monologues, and he really nails the delivery every time. The plot was known to me ahead of time except for the ending, which I liked. I guess this is kind of a start of the "third act" of Kevin Smith's career, who had basically written off directing ever again but starting with this script wrote 5 and plans to direct 3 of them as soon as possible. I certainly look more forward to them now than I had been after Cop Out and Red State, that's for sure.

[Quintus 5,399]

I completely forgot Smith made Red State actually. It was a quality little backyard thriller! That guy above was excellent in it.

Smith should dabble outside of his usual thing more often.

[Jay 37,374]

LUCY

Terrible!! OK, the first 10-15 minutes are actually quite good. We immediately meet Scarlet Johannson's Lucy, an American student in Taiwan dating the wrong guy who in the opening scene cons her into going into a hotel with a briefcase handcuffed to her, because he had done so for money the last 4 times and thought the heat was on him. Inside the tension mounts as various phone calls are made, her boyfriend is shot dead, and she is brought upstairs where a mob boss steps out of a room with more dead bodies. The briefcase ends up containing an experimental drug, and the bad guys sew bags of it into Lucy and 3 others as a way of smuggling it into other countries. Then a rival gang (or something) kidnaps her (again) and a guy ends up kicking her in the stomach which releases the drugs into her system, for ever changing her. All of this set up stuff was just fine - you get invested in Scarlet's character, and root for her to get out of trouble.

The problem is that as soon as the drugs kick in, she becomes this kind of emotionless robot, and her character no longer has an arc or goes through any interesting growth, and you end up not caring what she gets up to at all. But so many things make so sense, like how she will instantly murder any number of random henchmen of the gang, but then spare the leader of the gang because... well, no reason is given, and of course he comes back to kill her at the end. Or how in one scene she can instantly either murder or put to sleep (it isn't clear) everyone in a hallway that are pointing guns at her, yet at the end of the movie she can't do the same when it would solve the dilemma she's in.

She has ridiculous powers like touching people and being able to read their minds, making weapons fly out of people's hands, change her hair color, growing extra appendages, etc. In the picture I posted above, she's parsing through everyone in a city block's cell phone calls looking for a certain one. Nothing makes any sense. Morgan Freeman is in a different movie for a while until eventually him and Lucy meet at the end, for no clear or compelling reason. There's a cop who kind of helps her who could have been written out, hell even the bad guys have motivations that aren't that clear.

I dunno, no reason to keep wasting my time here, this movie was just a stinker with no rewatch value. Skip it entirely and see Under The Skin instead of you want a ScarJo fix.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's very strange, but Lucy is completely unknown here. There was no hype or marketing whatsoever. Nobody is talking about it. I only know of its existence because of this board.

[Jay 37,374]

They Came Together

Meh, easily David Wain's worst film. A great cast is ruined by a meandering film that can't decide if it's a satire of romantic comedies, or ZAZ type farce. It's missing all the charm of a Wet Hot American Summer or Wanderlust, and is just a sluggish fllm that is less than 80 minutes but feels like its over 2 hours. Nothing to recommend here even if you are a fan of Wain's other films. Totally skippable.

[nightscape94 965]

It's very strange, but Lucy is completely unknown here. There was no hype or marketing whatsoever. Nobody is talking about it. I only know of its existence because of this board.

It was pretty heavily marketed here in the States. Once it was released it received absolutely no hype or word-of-mouth. Negative or positive. It just sort of happened, then it was gone. I heard no one talking about it, and knew no one who saw it.