|
DrVenkman posted:Exactly that. After coming off Casino Royale, which people loved, they utterly squandered it on...that. CR gives them a great jumping off point and they have no idea what to do with it. Am I right in thinking it was a victim of the writer's strike or did I just make that up? Oh I see what you mean, I thought you were saying there was some impressive quality to the making of the film and contrasting that with how pointless it is, not saying it's impressively bad. Which is is. It sucks super, super bad.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
cloudchamber posted:The opening to Thunderball has everything that was great about the second half of the Connery period: ...and the rest of Thunderball has everything that is terrible about the Connery period, mostly due to Kevin McClory's fetish for watersports. Real watersports, not the R. Kelly kind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:It was precisely the writer's strike: Daniel Craig describes making the movie as "hosed." They should have just made a scriptless, plotless, fully improvised Bond film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:They should have just made a scriptless, plotless, fully improvised Bond film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
In Gattaca, when Ethan Hawke's character (actual identity) comes up as a suspect, they say he has no living relatives. His parents are dead, yes, but we know the cop/brother is his living relative. Their last names should be the same, right? Why doesn't the detective know this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:It was precisely the writer's strike: Daniel Craig describes making the movie as "hosed." The problem isn't just the writing though. Casino Royale and Skyfall aren't especially well written, but Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes are good directors. Marc Forster isn't. The action scenes are just totally ineptly directed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Re: Czech film. Is The Cremator (1969) stylistically singular, or was it part of a movement of Czech film from around that time period?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:In Gattaca, when Ethan Hawke's character (actual identity) comes up as a suspect, they say he has no living relatives. His parents are dead, yes, but we know the cop/brother is his living relative. Their last names should be the same, right? Why doesn't the detective know this? I think it is his brother that says this, covering up the info himself -- he wants to talk to his brother (Ethan Hawke) and find out what's going on rather than hand him over to the powers that be. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:The problem isn't just the writing though. Casino Royale and Skyfall aren't especially well written, but Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes are good directors. Marc Forster isn't. The action scenes are just totally ineptly directed. The story in QOS is remarkably forgettable too. It's an all-round pile o' poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Apparently the reason the opening car chase is so weirdly edited is that there was originally one more car in it, and they decided after filming that it was too many or something and had to cut out all shots of it. Still, overall, it's a record of that brief time in movies where people thought jumpy shaky camerawork was required in action scenes and not just one technique among many.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Friedpundit posted:Re: Czech film. Is The Cremator (1969) stylistically singular, or was it part of a movement of Czech film from around that time period? Juraj Herz is usually framed as being tangentially connected to, but not really a part of, the Czech New Wave of the late 60s, which was noted both for its formal experimentation and its often allegorical political critique. Depending on what stylistic factors you're thinking of, you might want to look at Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970) or Case for a Rookie Hangman (1970). Edit: Though a lot of that separation is probably because of (historical and current) ethnic bias against Slovaks? CharlieFoxtrot fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
How is The Cremator? It was recommended to me on Criticker and it sounded interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Glass Joe posted:...and the rest of Thunderball has everything that is terrible about the Connery period, mostly due to Kevin McClory's fetish for watersports. That scene in NSNAgain where the lady water skis into the bar and says "whoops I made you all wet" is cool as heck though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:How is The Cremator? It was recommended to me on Criticker and it sounded interesting. Totally bananas. A little overwrought in places, but fascinating every step of the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
When measuring time in a movie, how long is a "reel"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
qntm posted:When measuring time in a movie, how long is a "reel"? Modern films are no longer distributed on reels of this length (if they're distributed on physical reels at all), so if you're in film distribution or projection and you have in your hands a reel of film you're holding almost exactly twice as much film as the classic `reel'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
I think modern movies come on anywhere from 4-6 reels. Some get crazy and come in multiple cases because they're absurdly long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
qntm posted:When measuring time in a movie, how long is a "reel"? About 20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
A reel holds 1000 feet of film, unless you're talking about a double reel, which holds 2000. Double reels are the standard nowadays and may be referred to simply as "reels", which can be ambiguous if you don't know the context. As for how long 1000 feet of film lasts: For talkies, 1 foot of film equals 3/4 of a second, so about 11 minutes total; For late silents, 1 foot equals around 4/5 of a second, so about 13 minutes total; Early silents, 1 foot equals around 1 second, so about 16 minutes total. That's assuming the reel is full -- it might not be. I don't know much about talkies, but for silents, they tried to position the reel breaks during intertitles, so if the projectionist missed the change-over, it would be less distracting than if the break occurred in the middle of a scene. So a "reel", in practice, can be anywhere from 800-1100 feet, and the last reel in a multi-reel feature can be significantly shorter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Well, all of this is interesting, thank you. I ask because I was reading Roger Ebert's Movie Glossary and one of the entries is:quote:Brotman's Law
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
The Brotman in question is Oscar Brotman, of the Brotman and Sherman theatre chain. He was a big noise in film exhibition in Ebert's home of Chicago in the '50s, '60s, and '70s. He would've meant the kind of reel that's around 11 minutes. Random trivia: Oscar Brotman's Loop Theatre hosted the world premiere of Equinox (1970), for which Brotman had ushers dressed as apes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
Are there any movies(preferably good or interesting ones) about Genghis Khan/the mongols?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Are there any movies(preferably good or interesting ones) about Genghis Khan/the mongols? There is John Wayne "classic" The Conqueror. It is interesting in a lot of diffrent ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Are there any movies(preferably good or interesting ones) about Genghis Khan/the mongols? Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
There's also this which has a pretty good metacritic score. Haven't seen it, though 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
peer posted:There's also this which has a pretty good metacritic score. Haven't seen it, though I have, and it's great -- watch this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Yeah Mongol is awesome as hell. It also purports to be the first in a trilogy, but I haven't heard anything about that in years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Rabbit Hill posted:I have, and it's great -- watch this one. Seconding this, it really is an awesome film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
I live in CHicago and they have the Gene Siskel Theater well they're showing movies in 4k but I don't know what that means. Specifically Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Strangelove among others. Is it really worth it to go and see them in 4k?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Hollis posted:I live in CHicago and they have the Gene Siskel Theater well they're showing movies in 4k but I don't know what that means. Specifically Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Strangelove among others. Is it really worth it to go and see them in 4k? It means go see Lawrence of Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
I've seen Lawrence of Arabia in normal movie theaters , but never 4k is it that much of a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
I saw the Lawrence 4K cinema broadcast thing last year and it was amazing so yes do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Okay I will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
4K refers to the resolution of the image: If you've seen Lawrence of Arabia in the past it was probably a 35mm print (and probably a not-well-preserved one); the digital 4K restoration will look much better and more detailed in comparison. CharlieFoxtrot fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:4K refers to the resolution of the image: Diagrams like that always confuse me, because they seem to imply a higher resolution necessarily means a larger screen size.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
caiman posted:Diagrams like that always confuse me, because they seem to imply a higher resolution necessarily means a larger screen size. I think they are meant to show that if every pixel was the same size, that's how much relative space the full image would occupy. Projected onto the same size screen as a 1080p picture (which is slightly lower effective res than 35mm I believe), pixels would be 1/4th as large making everything look much sharper and more detailed. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
People watch DVDs on 40"+ TVs all the time and it drives me insane. They look like a loving watercolour, HOW IS THIS PREFERABLE?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
For some reason I'm fascinated by the boring topics of 1. the history of film formats and technology and 2. film preservation. Does anybody know about good sites (other than Wiki) to read about this stuff? Or documentaries about them, preferably on Netflix streaming?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
echoplex posted:People watch DVDs on 40"+ TVs all the time and it drives me insane. They look like a loving watercolour, HOW IS THIS PREFERABLE?! Watercolors can look pretty. I find some movies are better crisp, and some are better a little blurry. I don't like pixelation though, that's different. My question: in Mr Holland's Opus, is the son deaf because he played music over the womb, or just random chance? Or some god's idea of punishing/testing the dad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Mescal posted:For some reason I'm fascinated by the boring topics of 1. the history of film formats and technology and 2. film preservation. Does anybody know about good sites (other than Wiki) to read about this stuff? Or documentaries about them, preferably on Netflix streaming? These Amazing Shadows was supposed to be decent and is apparently on Netflix. There's also Guardians of History which is on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oift1b_CwX4 I've no idea how good it is, but it's got Alan Alda!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:31
|
|
