|
spe posted:How much does make-up conceal lines on the face and general signs of ageing and old skin? I'd say Before Sunset does a decent job of this, going so far as to basically directly compare how they look now, 9+ years later, to their appearance in Before Sunrise -- unflattering by comparison, though both leads are attractive by any standards.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:On that topic... Final Cut by far. Much, much better picture quality than the otherwise very similar Director's Cut. If you watch it on Blu Ray you literally will not believe this is an early 80s movie. Without any exaggeration, I can say that when I saw it in the theater during its limited release, I was struck dumb by how good it looked (and sounded) -- easily looks like it was shot in 2009.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Trying to think of some great movie performances by actors that weren't regarded as particularly good actors, or serious actors, prior to the role. Some that come to mind from recent history: Steve Martin in Shopgirl Bill Murray in Lost in Translation Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Tom Hanks in Philadelphia Bruce Willis in Die Hard (if you had him pegged as a lightweight tv dramedy actor), Pulp Fiction (if you had him pegged as a silly action actor), or The Sixth Sense. qntm posted:What instances are there of a movie being made with the intention of retconning it in the sequel? A New Hope vs. Empire Strikes Back -- Vader killed Luke's dad vs. being Luke's dad regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Aug 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 04:55
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:No offense but these are all really bad choices. I don't think anyone would really consider any of these picks bad actors, except for Carrey but he had already proven himself in the Truman Show WAY before Eternal Sunshine. I think you're mixing up "known for comedy" for "known to be bad actors". Tom Hanks was known for lightweight comedies before Philadelphia. Which of his previous movies made you think "drat, that there is one fine actor?" -- The Burbs, Turner and Hooch, or Joe vs the Volcano? Steve Martin and Bill Murray were a bit more highly regarded, but hadn't really done much to say they were a serious actor as opposed to a talented comedy actor. While in retrospect Murray seems an obvious and inevitable choice for Lost in Translation, that certainly wasn't the perspective at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I'd say Groundhog Day was really Bill Murray's breakthrough in that regard. if not that, then certainly Rushmore. And for Tom Hanks, Big really showcased his acting chops. The scene where he's alone in the cheap hotel room crying in particular. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I doubt many people watching Big, as great a movie as it is, thought that Hanks would go on to win multiple Academy Awards. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:Just quoting this again really quick since it was cut off by Star Wars chat. I'd have to watch it again, but I thought the implication was that she might have burns we can't see; i.e., in more private areas (breasts / buttocks / vagina?) making the whole thing even creepier than it already was. How did she get those burns -- did someone give them to her, and if so was it voluntary or no?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:
The Exorcist will blow your mind
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 01:30
|
|
|
haveblue posted:If I cared enough about the movie to set aside two hours, and put down money, then I'll watch the whole drat thing. Otherwise it's an even bigger waste. Not really. You've already wasted your money, why waste your time as well?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2010 11:49
|
|
|
Binowru posted:And yet, wasn't Part III nominated for Best Picture the year it came out? I think that was mostly on the strength of the brand / director. In fact, the familiarity with and goodwill garnered by the first two GF movies makes the 3rd seem better than it is - i.e., subpar instead of flat out bad and confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
Affi posted:My girlfriend hates good movies Before Sunrise / Before Sunset (the two greatest movies ever made, best enjoyed with a few weeks between them to let the first one "settle" in your mind) Chungking Express All romantic movies but with greatness oozing out of them. e: If a girl I was dating *didn't* think Before Sunrise and Before Sunset were 5* movies, I would no-joke break up with her, because just based on that I'd know we didn't have much in common. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 08:57
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:I seriously doubt his girl is going to like loving Chungking Express if she thought Pulp Fiction was long and boring. Alright then, Roman Holiday. If I were forced to choose a movie I thought would be liked by the highest percentage of people in the US, it would definitely be on my short list.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Zwille posted:Are there any other movies like The Big Lebowski that follow the rules of a certain genre to a T but other than that are completely different in mood and tone?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
sursumdeorsum posted:I want to buy a Hitchcock blu ray, but have only seen Psycho and would like to get something else. What is a good non Psycho Hitchcock blu ray recommendation? Vertigo and Dial M for Murder are two of my most favorite movies. Absolutely perfect from beginning to end. e: Oh, blu ray. Then ... I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:In Red Dragon, did Harvey Keitel's character really tell his team to talk to every single news vendor within a six hour radius of the city of Chicago? Did I hear that wrong? The question should be, why are you watching Red Dragon instead of the infinitely superior Manhunter?  e: gently caress, now I've got to watch Manhunter again. IT'S JUST THAT GOOD.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:In what terrifying universe is Krull a good movie? The same one where sarcasm was never invented.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:The answer to all your questions is: it's a bad movie. Which is too bad because I honestly think the short story is some of Stephen King's best writing. After he gets in the room the narrator starts off thinking normal type thoughts and there's such a slow, subtle transition that you can't even point to one specific place where he goes off the rails, but all of a sudden it hits you -- he's talking about some crazy poo poo now (due to the hallucinatory power of the room). Just perfectly executed by King.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
SpitztheGreat posted:I just want to add my general dislike of Pacino as well; mostly because whenever I try to bring up the fact that he's not good people look at me like I'm crazy. Yes, he's AMAZING in Godfather 1 and 2 and Dog Day Afternoon but that's it!  Serpico Scarface Glengarry Glen Ross (might actually be his best role, his performance in the opening bar scene is astonishing) Insomnia Donnie Brasco The Insider
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Chinese Coffee Uh oh, he joins the list of actors who weren't great in every role. Population: every actor ever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
penismightier posted:No you jackass, those are all movies he's great in. Only one of those I've seen was Cruising and ... eh. So I extrapolated from that to the rest. My mistake! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them? Happens fairly often that a director so wants to disassociate him or herself from a film that their name is removed from the credits and generally replaced with the pseudonym Alan Smithee
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 03:45
|
|
|
csidle posted:I know it's quite a change of subject, but what do you guys think of scenes of making out and sex in movies? I'm asking because we watched My Name is Joe during class today and it was rather awkward during the makeout- and sexscenes. I suppose maybe you'll call it immature to find it awkward, but that's just how it is. There are very few sex scenes that I remember having enjoyed seeing, and those have only been because yay tits. I guess sex scenes are in there because of two reasons: 1. to flesh out character relationships 2. because the movie is going for a realistic angle and doesn't want to spare any details (bit of doubt on this one). This is from a while back but just wanted to chime in w/ my thoughts. Sex in movies is really effective at one thing - showing the awkwardness or lustful or uncomfortable aspects of sex (across a huge spectrum, of course, from two virgins trying to figure it out, to Last Tango in Paris, and all the way to rape). I basically never feel like it comes across as romantic or sexy. Indeed, the two most romantic movies of all time -- Before Sunrise and Before Sunset -- have but a single kiss between them. Another pair of incredibly romantic movies (though in a more bittersweet vein) -- In the Mood for Love and 2046 -- have one extraordinarily intense kiss and that's it. Indeed, the director of those films, Wong Kar Wai, is a master of making you feel the protagonist's longing or lust or love without having to resort to showing you sex or boobs or even physical contact. In short, less is more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Is there a "technical" name for that cliched female vocal "Aaaaaahhhhhhaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhh" recording that gets played over dramatic moments in a lot of movies (LOTR, Gladiator, etc.)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
adamj1982 posted:The reverse lebowski thing makes sense. I'm not sure what I need explaining really. I guess I just feel like I am missing something with it. Yeah it is about as far from Twin Peaks as can be, Barton Fink is even closer to TP in feel. For a recent movie with a bit of a Lynchian feel to the directing, might try Melancholia. It's available on Netflix instant. Or maybe Enter the Void. Though I suppose it depends on why you enjoyed TP -- the quirky characters and setting, the almost gothic tone, the mixture of banal ordinariness and the supernatural, the overarching mystery, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:My technique is to watch it with all the lights off and take as few breaks as possible (preferably zero). I've never seen the extras disc, though. I almost can't believe he shot that much footage (editing must've been a nightmare) but then again a bunch of his other films have been edited down too - Wild At Heart was four hours and Blue Velvet was eight or something ridiculous like that. Not to mention Dune and Fire Walk With Me, which had at least two hours cut. Lynch made some noises a few years ago about releasing a ' director's cut' of fwwm but it never came to pass because of rights issues. Too bad, cause the shooting script is much more interesting than the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Does anyone know the first usage of the trombone "wah wah wah wahhhhhh" to punctuate a bad joke or shaggy dog story? There's a great example in the MST3K episode "The Amazing Colossal Man" that I can't find an excerpt of on YT (for anyone with the episode, it's when the food delivery guy asks the guard why they need so much food. After being given the official cover story, he presses for the truth and the guard says "OK, truth is we have a 60 foot man in the tent". Delivery driver pauses and says "Yeah, sure you do pal". Cue Joel and the bots mocking that audio punchline). Just curious when / how it started. e: Different key than I normally imagine it, but this is the sound I'm talking about : http://www.sadtrombone.com/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
SubG posted:Do you think there are films which are considered to have an accurate portrayal of early 21st Century American life? Is Tarantino's dialogue `accurate'? Kevin Smith's? Andrew Bujalski's? Yes, Before Sunset.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
SubG posted:I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Of course, that goes to your larger point anyway; that type of conversation overlooks more mundane talks about what do you want for dinner, etc. But I don't think anyone is asking for a movie that contains every viable sentence spoken in a certain time period -- the viewer necessarily can and will extrapolate to the while from the dialogue contained in the film. And in that respect, Before Sunrise is the very epitome of my mid-2000s experience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Do people consider Before Sunset to be better than Before Sunrise? They are both brilliant individually but somehow the two taken together are even greater than the sum of their parts. Particularly with a decent sized break between the first viewing of each.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Jeff Wiiver posted:I just finished watching Rosemary's Baby and I loved how scary it was yet there was no blood at all in the movie and no stupid jump scares. What are some other prominent examples of horror movies that rely more on atmosphere than gore? Audition seems gory in retrospect, but there's only like 2 or 3 drops of blood in the entire film. Best watched not knowing anything going in. The Tenant Eraserhead
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Alternatively, then, mumblecore might fit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
Anyone know what the longest timeframe is between movies featuring the same characters played by the same actors? If we're including documentaries I'm sure the 7 Up series wins but for feature films, does anything beat out Before Sunrise - Before Sunset - Before Midnight (9 years between any two, 18 years between the first and last)? I'm primarily concerned with main characters, so Yoda and Palpatine in the Star Wars series don't count. e: I guess if you count Never Say Never Again as a legit James Bond film, that and Dr. No would get the honor at 21 years. And if we're talking secondary characters, the old guy playing Q would probably win overall. e2: Raiders to Crystal Skull is an amazing 27 years.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Sociopastry posted:Hey dudes, it seems like the recommendation megathread isn't really for people requesting movies, so I thought I'd ask here. Sorry if this isn't the right place. Dr. No is the first but it's hampered by being a bit clunky and having a lower budget than the following films. Goldfinger gets all the love but has plenty of silly points that you think about later that really undermine the entire movie. Bond actually is irrelevant to stopping the villain's plot, he fucks a lesbian straight, and the famous death in the movie couldn't actually happen. Great theme song though For Connery bond films, I recommend first watching From Russia with Love and/or Thunderball. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the best Bond films imo even if it does feature a one-off Bond in George Lazenby For Roger Moore as Bond, check out The Spy Who Loved Me Timothy Dalton - The Living Daylights Brosnan - Goldeneye If you particularly like any of those, then branch out to the rest of the Bond films by that actor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
qntm posted:Watch Casino Royale, then watch Quantum of Solace immediately afterwards. Quantum picks up seconds after Casino Royale and works a lot better when watched like that. Yup this, it works pretty well as a double feature.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
DNS posted:I believe you, but then why does a blu-ray projected in a theater look worse than a great quality 35mm print on the same screen? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because analog degrades more gracefully as the limits of resolution are approached. Depending on your eyesight and whatnot, you can probably pick up on digital artifacts like the screen door effect or harder / sharper transitions between neighboring pixels, whereas analog film does not have those issues and its quality issues at the limits are more of mild blurriness that may be unnoticeable if marginal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I walked past the electronics department at Wal-Mart today. Toy Story was playing on all the TVs on Blu-Ray. One of the TVs was one that artificially increases the frame rate. It was loving horrible, especially being able to compare side by side. It looked like a cut scene from one of the Lego Star Wars games. Why do these TVs exist? This is the most annoying meme-that's-not-a-meme on the internet. It's not the framerate that is the issue. In fact, high framerate will make movies look more like they do in a theater because you don't have 3:2 pulldown that creates judder when 24 fps movies are played on a 60 hz television. What you're seeing is the motion interprolation that creates extra frames by averaging the frames before and after. The TVs exist to make movies look better. The motion feature (each company has their own name for it -- as a general rule, combine any two of True, Smooth, Flow, Motion to find the terms they call it) is for sports and videogames primarily. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
That's right, though I'll address the outcome in a bit more detail. Specific examples will better illustrate. For 24 fps there are three main use cases: 1) Displayed on a 60 hz tv set. You'll have 3:2 pulldown, which creates judder (particularly noticeable in panning shots. Affects some people and not others. I think it's like vocal fry -- if you don't know about it you can happily be oblivious for the most part, but once you know you'll notice it a lot and it'll drive you insane) 2) Displayed on a 120 hz tv set with interpolation on. One 'real' frame will be displayed, then four 'made up' frames, repeat. This gives it an unnaturally smooth look, even if the made up frames are great since we are so used to movies having only 24 different images displayed each second 3) Displayed on a 120 hz tv set with interpolation off. Each real frame will be displayed 5 times in a row (for a total of 5/120ths of a second). This does away with the disadvantages of 1 and 2; since there are still only 24 different displayed frames per second and since there is no stutter of 3 frames than 2 frames than 3 frames as in 3:2 pulldown, the movie will look like it does in a theater, with neither too smooth nor too stuttery a display. (Of course this also holds true for 240 hz sets and, in Europe, 100 / 200 hz sets). Why 120? It's the smallest number that 24 and 30 (and by extension 60) will all divide into, which are the framerates for virtually all media you might be expected to view.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
caiman posted:A TV I'm looking at includes a 96hz mode. This will essentially produce the same result as your #3 example, correct? Since it's a multiple of 24. Only it'll show each frame 4 times instead of 5 times. Should there be any noticeable difference between a 120hz mode and a 96hz mode when viewing 24fps content? That's right, it should be exactly the same. I'm unfamiliar with that particular implementation but I would assume it detects 24 hz content and switches to 96 hz mode automatically? If it is a user toggle for whatever reason, the only thing to be aware of is not to use that mode for 30/60 hz content. And of course be sure to turn off the interpolation feature (it'll be called something like SmoothFlow, TrueMotion, etc)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
caiman posted:Hmm, apparently there's a program called SubRip that can extract hardcoded subtitles using optical character recognition. I wonder how well it actually works? No harm in trying I guess. That + machine translation sounds like a recipe for absolute gibberish. I'd be interested in hearing the results. And in my experience, Bing translate is slightly better than Google. At least for Dutch. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 18:41
|
|