|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 348 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 104 of 348:
| 
Jul 19 00:59 UTC 1999 |
Actually, richard, one of the great parts of the film is deciding what it's
about, and I think you may have gotten it wrong. But that's the beauty of
the film. I, personally, found Cruise's ccharacter quite credible. His
motive is not sexual boredom when he plays with temptation. He's consumed
with jealousy. Or maybe it's *not* jealousy. :)
|
drewmike
|
|
response 105 of 348:
|
Jul 19 11:49 UTC 1999 |
I haven't seen it, so temper my opinions with that knowledge, but, yes,
Richard, I *can* fault the casting! Why would you want to watch a married
couple making out? It's like, okay, yeah, that's probably their "kids at
Grandma's" routine, but so what? Now a married couple fighting? Yes sir!
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 348:
|
Jul 19 13:15 UTC 1999 |
I heard the exact point in #105 made, on an editorial on NPR's evening
news program, "All Things Considered". It is a silly viewpoint.
|
aaron
|
|
response 107 of 348:
|
Jul 19 16:59 UTC 1999 |
re #104: I think he has it wrong as well, but not because the film has any
great or deep meaning. I think, in many ways, its biggest weakness
is that it lacks a great or deep meaning. It is just a movie --
a pretty one, sure. But not particularly meaningful or memorable.
|
richard
|
|
response 108 of 348:
|
Jul 19 22:19 UTC 1999 |
well if I have it wrong, offer your opinion
|
aaron
|
|
response 109 of 348:
|
Jul 19 23:33 UTC 1999 |
I will share my opinion after more people have viewed the film. Do you
understand the concept of the "spoiler"?
|
senna
|
|
response 110 of 348:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 1999 |
This is a film I would have enjoyed considerably less if I knew what was
going on before I saw it.
|
senna
|
|
response 111 of 348:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 1999 |
If I had known, not if I knew. I can grammar patrol myself to death.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 348:
|
Jul 20 23:20 UTC 1999 |
you can talk about the themes of a movie without giving away plot
details-- senna said he didnt agree with my impression of what the
movie was about thematically, but didnt offer an alternate opinion.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 113 of 348:
|
Jul 20 23:30 UTC 1999 |
A few questions for anyone who's been to the Quality 16:
1) How do the food prices compare to the other theaters in town?
2) Coke or Pepsi?
3) (most important) Are there cup holders on the seats?
|
bru
|
|
response 114 of 348:
|
Jul 21 02:43 UTC 1999 |
I have no interest in seeing the film.
|
md
|
|
response 115 of 348:
|
Jul 21 11:41 UTC 1999 |
If you mean Eyes Wide Shut, me neither.
According to IMDb, Jack Valenti is saying that
the MPAA probably screwed up by giving the
South Park movie an R rather than an NC-17,
so if you've been putting off taking your
kids to see it you might want to hurry.
The two young men responsible for this
masterpiece were on the Dennis Miller show
last week, where Miller told them he thought
the movie was the most subversive thing he'd
seen in a long time. They admitted, only
half-jokingly, that their goal was to bring
down the MPAA.
|
mary
|
|
response 116 of 348:
|
Jul 21 12:10 UTC 1999 |
Regarding Quality 16 theater - I can't comment on the refreshments as I
didn't have any, but I like the theater. The lobby is twice maybe three
times the size of the Ann Arbor, the refreshment stand is also small (buts
looks efficient), and the auditorium I was in was fairly perfect, with
comfortable seats, rows wider than deeper, a big screen and great sound.
This was one one of the smallest rooms they have, no doubt (Lake Placid),
so maybe all spaces won't seem so pleasant.
Yes, there are cup holders and wide, soft, somewhat rockable seats. $4.75
for a Sunday matinee.
"Lake Placid" is camp fun. It was worth the 85 minutes just to
hear *Betty White* say, "If I were a man I'd tell you to suck my dick."
|
omni
|
|
response 117 of 348:
|
Jul 21 13:39 UTC 1999 |
But how is the popcorn? Oil, or Butter? The one nice thing about the Ann
Arbor was that they actually used real butter on the popcorn.
Me, I think I'd rather spend an extra $20 for a movie package on cable, and
be able to be comfortable, have real butter on my air popped corn, and of
course access to the fridge. You can't do that at a multiplex. The only thing
I can see that I'm losing is the chance to get herded like a cow, and possibly
get my pocket picked.
And the best thing about watching movies at home? You can sit there in your
underwear and no one will toss you out for doing so.
|
md
|
|
response 118 of 348:
|
Jul 21 14:24 UTC 1999 |
Recent purchase:
A spiffy new tape of WAR OF THE WORLDS (B) -- This was
the first science fiction movie to show aliens and their
machinery as truly alien. No men in rubber suits here. The
war machines, which the designers modeled after manta rays
and cobras, are sleek, strange objects, and the sound effects
curdled my blood the first time I heard them. The movie is
flawed with period cliches -- the cartoon Mexican, the piously
sappy minister, the wide-eyed screaming bimbo -- which you
have to think the director could've avoided. Some of the
dialog is stilted. The scene where the minister walks slowly
toward one of the Martian machines holding up his bible and
intoning the 23rd psalm, and is promptly fried by the machine's
heat weapon, brings me close to blasphemous giggles every
time I see it. And of course the writers throw H.G. Wells's novel
to the ground and dance on it (no great loss, in my opinion).
But none of his matters next to the astonishing battle scenes.
This movie is the paradigm for all the others that followed.
A must-see.
|
gull
|
|
response 119 of 348:
|
Jul 21 14:54 UTC 1999 |
Re #117: I don't know. Some movies are much better on the big screen. And
I *hate* panned & scanned films.
|
scott
|
|
response 120 of 348:
|
Jul 21 19:13 UTC 1999 |
Over the weekend I saw two movies:
South Park: Extremely funny, assuming you aren't easily offended.
The Red Violin: Cool, but a bit hokey and overly dramatic.
|
richard
|
|
response 121 of 348:
|
Jul 22 21:42 UTC 1999 |
I rented the DVD of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining"-- it is
excellent of course, but unfortunately is the pan and scan version
(most DVD's are the widescreen versions naturally) Any videophile
would want the widescreen version, which makes me wonder what the
DVD folks were thinking. The "making of" documentary directed by
Kubrick's wife is excelleng though.
Also rented the DVD of "Pride of the Yankees" with Gary Cooper, and
discovered the DVD is the *colorized* version. Egads! Of course I
refused to watch that, as noone with any respect for the original vision
of a film director, would watch a butchered colorized version of their
film. Why, when a company is putting together an expensive digitalized
dvd version of a classic film, would they use a colorized print instead of
the original black and white? Sheesh.
|
jazz
|
|
response 122 of 348:
|
Jul 22 22:43 UTC 1999 |
I used to be violently against colorization until I saw an interview
with Ted Turner wherein Ted pointed out that colorization can be undone by
the viewer by simply turning down the "color" knob or slider on their TV.
|
mary
|
|
response 123 of 348:
|
Jul 23 00:39 UTC 1999 |
I enjoyed "Eyes Wide Shut".
|
tpryan
|
|
response 124 of 348:
|
Jul 23 03:28 UTC 1999 |
I would think that turning the color down on a colorized movie would
get you the B&W version of the colorized movie. There could be difference
in shadow and light, as the new color would not always translate to the
original grayscale.
|
gull
|
|
response 125 of 348:
|
Jul 23 03:42 UTC 1999 |
Re #121: They don't have any choice...if the rights to the print are owned
by the company that colorized it, they may well have been forced to use the
colorized version.
|
drewmike
|
|
response 126 of 348:
|
Jul 23 15:26 UTC 1999 |
While it's possible to add colorization at the film level, if the colorization
is being done for home video, it's done at the video stage. As a result, there
aren't many colorized "prints" around.
And yes, tpryan, when you turn down the color on a colorized movie, you get
the black and white version of the colorized movie. Which is the black and
white movie. (If you were to make a copy of a color film onto black and white
stock, then there could be differences, because different black and white
stocks have different color sensitivity. But colorization only affects the
chroma, not the luminance.)
In fact, it's often the case that when a film is colorized, a new
film-to-video transfer is struck, and these often can be better than the
transfers that had been available before.
|
remmers
|
|
response 127 of 348:
|
Jul 23 16:14 UTC 1999 |
I read somewhere recently that the colorization fad is pretty much dead,
and I'm inclined to think it's true. When I'm channel surfing I seldom
run into a colorized film these days. A few years ago I came across them
a lot. I for one do not miss them.
I found "Eyes Wide Shut" to be an engrossing, fascinating film,
masterfully executed. Much of the fun was trying to figure out where it
was headed. In the end, I wasn't disappointed. And the title is perfect.
We saw "Eyes Wide Shut" at the new Quality 16. I like the theater. Has
an intimate feel to it that you don't often find in a multiplex.
Comfortable stadium seating, nice big screen, excellent sound.
|
drewmike
|
|
response 128 of 348:
|
Jul 23 17:20 UTC 1999 |
True enough: nowadays I really only see colorization on the pre-color episodes
of "Gilligan's Island", "The Beverly Hillbillies", etc. I'd be willing to
construct an argument that the artificial color harms the believability of
the greater Text, but that's going to have to be later.
|
