SturgisPodmore 0 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Superman: The Movie. It just doesn't get much better than this.Perhaps you are describing the snack you had afterwards, or the good sleep you got last night? ~Sturgis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Even though he's a perfect Superman, my enjoyment of the film drops a notch when Chris Reeve comes into play.Nothing to do with him though, but the tone of the film switches dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orson 1 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 The Shining, a film that only gets better each time I watch it. Fantastic camera work throughout the entire movie. I think I can safely say that the maze shot is probably my all time favorite. And the music during that particular sequence is I believe Wendy or Walter's best of the film. I swear, everytime I think I have that movie and it's metaphors figured out, I only realize how wrong I probably am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendal_Ozzel 36 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Perhaps you are describing the snack you had afterwards, or the good sleep you got last night? Although I did sleep well...I enjoy the movie because it's a wonderfully-directed, acted, written, shot, and scored film, and it's one of my favorites. I'm sorry you can't enjoy it as much as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SturgisPodmore 0 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 True, I can't.It just seemed completely implausible (and I mean from a viewpoint considering Superman is plausible.)~Sturgis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Let's see here.... The Breakfast Club. I don't know how, but I never saw this film until today. And I liked it. A lot. IMO not quite as good as Ferris Bueller, but very close. I've no particular insights to offer- I loved the performances, loved the dialogue, loved the setting, thought it hit upon many truths I haven't seen dealt with in other teen movies. Die Hard 2. A solid, enjoyable, action flick. Looks good, has a dynamic setting (I really love the airport set). Too bad the villain doesn't hold a candle to his predecesor and succesor. The Grey Zone. A very powerful and very good Holocaust film. It asks very hard question, and shows the details of a day's work in the death camps in a stark, matter of factly way that is extremely disturbing. The cast does a very good job, most giving very low key performances. Allan Corduner, Steve Buscemi and Daniel Benzali impressed me in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Die Hard 2. A solid, enjoyable, action flick. Looks good, has a dynamic setting (I really love the airport set). Too bad the villain doesn't hold a candle to his predecesor and succesor.True. I also don't like how Harlin seems to be intent on showing every single death in slow-motion.Look, kids! Shooting people sure looks cool, doesn't it!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin 2 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It just seemed completely implausible (and I mean from a viewpoint considering Superman is plausible.)You mean the whole turning back time thing?And you like PoA?Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Exorcist II: The Heretic A wretched sequel to the famous 1973 film.This film tries to explain what happened in the first film, but it looks like no one involved in this film had any clue what the Exorcist was about.Instead of a tense, claustrophobic thriller that's looked and felt plausible even when Linda Blair's head was spinning we get a sort of paranormal sci-fi film of the worst kind.The script ask questions but seems clueless to answer them and instead of offering a resolution the film relies of special effects instead. (the spinning head and Regan floating from her bed were the big effect shots from the first film, in this one we see a house collapsing and crashing into the depths of hell, yet it's not scary, interesting or particulary watchable in any way)This film has Richard Burton and Louise Fletcher in it, yet I can't say that they act in this film.Especially Burton, who can be great when he wants too, walks around un-interested and doesn't even bother to phone in a performance or fake it. Fletcher fresh from her Oscarwinning performance in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest doesn't even deserve a razzie for this one. Like Burton she utters the lines she memorized from the script, but there is nothing resembling a performance.Linda Blair comes out slightly better, at least she seems to give it the old college try. (she appears very evocatively dressed in several scenes wearing a rather transparant white dress and no bra, and it's clearly cold out their.)Max von Sydow, Ned Beatty and James Earl Jones are also in this film, but their roles are so small that their contribution does not even matterDirected by John Boorman who tried to get out of this film, but was threatened with a law suit.I'm guessing he just gave up. He's a great visual director and this film does contain some striking imagery and some good special effects. But it can't hide the painfull script and acting.The only people doing a proper job are William A. Fraker who does some amazing shots of locusts and flying scenes and gives the african part of the film a goldish glow.And Ennio Morricone who does what he can and provides a score that is unsettling when it needs to be and contains some interesting choral effects while avoiding sounding anything like church music.All in all an utter dissapointment that somehow escaped the place were sequels go to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 True, I can't.It just seemed completely implausible (and I mean from a viewpoint considering Superman is plausible.)What does that make Harry Potter?Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 In Superman it looks implausible.It's actually a cop-out, like killing Data after introducing his nearly identical twin.The leading lady dies...oh no problem Supes flies around the Earth really really fast and all will be well again.It's well acted and well shot, but it's also a sign that the film makers did not want to have their cake and eat it.The time travel scene is POA is very well integrated into the films plot.In Superman it just seems tagged on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SturgisPodmore 0 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 You mean the whole turning back time thing?And you like PoA?What does that make Harry Potter?It's well acted and well shot, but it's also a sign that the film makers did not want to have their cake and eat it. The time travel scene is POA is very well integrated into the film's plot. In Superman it just seems tagged on.Exactly. It was handled differently. In Superman, it was a convenient way to get Lois back. In PoA, it had been hinted at all throughout the book/film: it was how Hermione had been attending multiple classes at once and it was far more complex, with having to avoid your old self, and how, at least in the movie, there were things they saw earlier that they had already done, it's very difficult to think about; it's not just repeating something. It's just an easy way out in Superman. ~Sturgis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Luckily, film is more than plot, acting and photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It is, it doesn't kill the film, but it does make one shake his head in disbelief.Hey is their any way Supes can fly around the world and prevent the sequels from being made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It is, it doesn't kill the film, but it does make one shake his head in disbelief.To be honest, this was the first time I thought Supes equalled his powers in the comics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I'm not very familiar with the comics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orson 1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 As much as I love Superman-The Movie, the turning back time sequence has always bothered me. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a cop out, but it did open a door for too many questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Harry Potter and the Prisoner Of Azkaban.Simply a very good film, not brilliant. not flawless, but very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orson 1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 2001: A Space OddyseyEven after watching it for a second time I couldn't help but remind myself over and over again that this film was shot in the late sixties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 The DVD transfer is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orson 1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 You aren't kidding. If one didn't know any better, it could easily pass as looking like it was just released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos 0 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 The Corpse BrideBrilliant. Loved the character and art design, Elfman's score came up to my expectations (though I like Nightmare... better) and really good humour. Those who enjoy Burton's gothic but at the same time appealing tone will LOVE this. And a good movie for the halloween weekend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 The DVD transfer is amazing.It's not the transfer but the restoration that's amazing.If only every movie would get the same treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Yeah I agree, a lot of work must have gone into that.Are the other Kubrick releases on DVD this good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Yeah I agree, a lot of work must have gone into that.Are the other Kubrick releases on DVD this good?I have several Kubricks, but in terms of image quality, I don't think the others come close. Of course, 2001 is shot on 70mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 If one didn't know any better, it could easily pass as looking like it was just released.And filmed on the moon!Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Well it was, wasn't it?They could not have used CGI in those days..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orson 1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 The moon shots are what really stand out to me. The photography and scale are simply amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,154 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Are the other Kubrick releases on DVD this good?Most of the others are 4:3, even though in many cases the correct theatrical aspect ratio seems to have been different. Apparently, Kubrick himself decided his movies should only be released for home viewing in 4:3... even if I'd agree with that on the base that at that time TVs were always 4:3 (which I don't), I'd still consider it wrong in the days of 16:9 TVs and home projectors.The UK Spartacus I have is merely OK. But I believe there have been several different releases of that by now. The Shining is 4:3, but otherwise in very good shape. Plus having the US release means I can watch the 30 minutes they removed for us Europeans.Marian - who doesn't yet have any of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Most of the others are 4:3, even though in many cases the correct theatrical aspect ratio seems to have been different. Apparently, Kubrick himself decided his movies should only be released for home viewing in 4:3... even if I'd agree with that on the base that at that time TVs were always 4:3 (which I don't), I'd still consider it wrong in the days of 16:9 TVs and home projectors.Kubrick designed and composed these films in "Full Frame". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,713 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Just saw the Recruit last night and did not think very much of it. For a cynical man like myself the plot was too simple. You could tell from the beginning Al Pacino's character was the bad guy. The ending was jsut a little suspenceful but that was it. Pacino did not growl and shout as much as I would have hoped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Frailty. This could've been one of the better creepy films if it were not for the disappointing ending. Bill Paxton, who stars and also directed this movie, is a guy to be reckoned with. ----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Pacino did not growl and shout as much as I would have hoped I'm so tired of that. He has become a caricature of himself. Donnie Brasco is one of his few "recent" movies where he demonstrates that doesn't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,713 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Pacino did not growl and shout as much as I would have hoped I'm so tired of that. He has become a caricature of himself. Donnie Brasco is one of his few "recent" movies where he demonstrates that doesn't need it.I know. Pacino has the same problem that DeNiro has. Both are victims of the roles they have played. DeNiro scowls like a mad man these days. I do not even know at which point he began doing than frown thing and that sour expression he does in every movie now. Analyze this was probably the first I noticed the frown and it has gotten worse since. And when I heard him scream like a little girl in the trailer of Hide and Seek that was enough for me. Pacino is little looney in most cases. Insomnia was still good but you would think he has had enough of playing these tough crooks and tough cops (well Heat was magnificent for both DeNiro and Pacino. Truly wonderful chemistry and acting there). It is a shame to see great actors do mediocre roles seemingly on autopilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Pacino did not growl and shout as much as I would have hoped I'm so tired of that. He has become a caricature of himself. Donnie Brasco is one of his few "recent" movies where he demonstrates that doesn't need it.I do not even know at which point he began doing than frown thing and that sour expression he does in every movie now.It started when he played that blind fellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 And he won an oscar for that sour expression in that film Alex!Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,713 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 And he won an oscar for that sour expression in that film Alex!TimI meant DeNiro with that scowl but Pacino has something like that in his mannerisms today too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I saw Transporter on dvd lately. One of the best action movies of the past few years, and it really made me interested in Transporter 2.If you haven't already, don't see the sequel. It will induce the following symptoms:fever, cough, sore throat, muscle aches, acute respiratory distress, and......diarrhea TimYou mean...it's not good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Unless you believe the aforementioned symptoms to be good...In all seriousness, I loved Transporter, the original. Fantastic action sequences (especially when he fights on the bus, in such closed quarters), and decent story. I was geared up for the sequel, and saw it in the theater with a friend. When the lights went up, I was in a real hurry to get out. There are one or two redeeming moments, but overall it was horrid. I was upset because I wanted it so badly to be good, and I was severly let down.I don't know if you see things exactly as I do, but read some of the more venerable critic's reviews, it got generally bad ones.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I don't know if you see things exactly as I do, but read some of the more venerable critic's reviews, it got generally bad ones.So did the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I watched Beetlejuice, Batman and Batman Returns. Tim Burton rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,713 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I watched Beetlejuice, Batman and Batman Returns. Tim Burton rocks!Burton rocks!i love his gothic imagination. Most of his movies indeed rock but there are few snoozers in there like Planet of the Apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Which, thankfully, I've never seen. I hope the Special Editions of the Batmen were successful enough to warrant a similar release of Beetlejuice. So long as they keep the isolated score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,154 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Kubrick designed and composed these films in "Full Frame".But did he also design them *for* "Full Frame"? From what I know, the theatrical releases were in widescreen. Were they the "wrong" ones?As far as I am concerned, if there are 4:3 and widescreen versions of any film, one of them can't be right. And yes, I know about that Super-something format which allows you to frame your movie so you could grab the best parts for both formats - it still means you can't take full advantage of your screen.Marian - who obviously dislikes any kind of re-framing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,713 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Which, thankfully, I've never seen. I hope the Special Editions of the Batmen were successful enough to warrant a similar release of Beetlejuice. So long as they keep the isolated score.I unfortunately have seen it but not the original Planet of the Apes (which I do not want to see because I have an aversion against Charlton Heston). Nothing in that movie is good IMO. Even Elfman score lacks spark. When those Special editions of Batmen were released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 October 24th - all four films. I've only bought Batman so far - the transfer is better, but far from perfect - it looks a bit washed out now, and the visible string as Batman descends into the restaurant is even more visible now. There's a good 10 mins of extras about Danny Elfman and the music - not particularly informative - more Tim Burton just saying how great Elfman is, but good to watch nonetheless.I intend to buy Batman Returns soon - but I'm going to wait to see if the rumour of a manufacturing error is true - people are saying that the Region 2 DVD has no Burton commentary! I have absolutely no intention to buy Forever or Batman & Robin though - every non-Burton Batfilm (with the possible exception of Batman Begins - although this is nowhere near as good as it's made out to be IMO - it won't last like the Burtons) - they make me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Watched Goldfinger last night. What a silly movie that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,713 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are hideous. Joel Schumacher really knew how to wreck the Batman series. Perhaps i should buy those two Burton Batman movies. The first is still the best. I have not seen Batman Begins though but I doubt it can steal the throne from the first movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orson 1 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Are the other Kubrick releases on DVD this good?Most of the others are 4:3, even though in many cases the correct theatrical aspect ratio seems to have been different. Apparently, Kubrick himself decided his movies should only be released for home viewing in 4:3... even if I'd agree with that on the base that at that time TVs were always 4:3 (which I don't), I'd still consider it wrong in the days of 16:9 TVs and home projectors.The UK Spartacus I have is merely OK. But I believe there have been several different releases of that by now. The Shining is 4:3, but otherwise in very good shape. Plus having the US release means I can watch the 30 minutes they removed for us Europeans.Marian - who doesn't yet have any of the others.I'm not quite sure why Kubirck did 4:3 as well. I must say that it didn't bother too much when I was watching The Shining this weekend. One can only wonder how much better it would have been in 16:9 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Kubrick designed and composed these films in "Full Frame".But did he also design them *for* "Full Frame"? From what I know, the theatrical releases were in widescreen. Were they the "wrong" ones?Yes, all his films were shot full frame, except for The Shining (I think) and 2001. If the others were shown widescreen, then the cinemas were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts