|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 327 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 268 of 327:
| 
Feb 25 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Ok - I must now rush home and test mine again.
|
gregb
|
|
response 269 of 327:
|
Feb 26 19:50 UTC 2003 |
Re. 253: Hey, I can mutitask with the best of'um. In fact, I'm do so
right now. I'm typing this and watching the screen AT THE SAME TIME!
And listening to Duran Duran to boot. Damn, I'm good! 8-)
Re. 255: Same sitch here, Twila. Except I got a 27" set 4' away.
DVD's are great for pausing to read the subtitles, if necessary.
Re: 257: Reminds me of Enter the Dragon. Weird hearing Chuck Norris's
voice dubbed by someone else.
|
lynne
|
|
response 270 of 327:
|
Feb 26 20:14 UTC 2003 |
I find it entertaining and a good use of language skills to watch an
American movie that's been dubbed into German. Also, the choice of voices
is often highly entertaining--DiCaprio in Titanic, for instance, was given
this whiny brown-nosing dork voice that was hysterical.
|
void
|
|
response 271 of 327:
|
Feb 27 08:03 UTC 2003 |
Finally saw "The Last Temptation of Christ" in its entirety.
|
clees
|
|
response 272 of 327:
|
Feb 27 11:52 UTC 2003 |
You guys are spoilt.
Anything coming from UK, France, US etc. has subtitles, overhere.
Convenient for you english speaking people if from anlgosaxon
counyries. (which dominate our tv stations and movie theaters)
Dubbing is rightout annoying.
On the other hand - if I can choose - I rahter watch movies on BBC.
Like Jan says, many subtitles are awkward at best, or wrong
misinterpreted etc. Mainly cause of work pressure there is no time for
decent jobs, or those typist persons aren't good enough in languages.
|
gregb
|
|
response 273 of 327:
|
Feb 27 14:44 UTC 2003 |
"Spolit." Is that a slang term? ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 274 of 327:
|
Feb 27 16:54 UTC 2003 |
(Of course, most Dutch speak four languages anyway - a slight advantage.)
|
arabella
|
|
response 275 of 327:
|
Feb 28 23:50 UTC 2003 |
When I was in the Czech Republic in 2001 I went to see "Chocolat"
subtitled in Czech. It was fun, and I think I learned a bit of
Czech that way.
Years ago I saw "Star Wars" dubbed into French on French TV. (The
French seem to prefer dubbing to subtitling.) The voice they
picked for Han Solo was high and whiny. Hysterical!
Actually, I've read that subtitling is common in smaller languages/
countries, because the audience isn't big enough to justify the
expense of dubbing. Thus, it's easy to find American movies
dubbed into French or German, but not Czech (or Bulgarian, or
Albanian, etc...) I did see "Notting Hill" subtitled in German
when I was in Austria, but it was at a special theater that
showed subtitled rather than dubbed movies.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 276 of 327:
|
Mar 3 17:09 UTC 2003 |
Has anyone seen " The Caveman's Valentine"?
|
janc
|
|
response 277 of 327:
|
Mar 4 04:21 UTC 2003 |
I recently saw a historical romance where a man and a woman were headed
of on a trip together. Since the kids were sleeping, I had the volume
turned fairly low and English subtitles turned on. The man, wondering
if sex was a possibility said something along the lines of "Shall we
lodge together?" The subtitle said "Shall we lunch together?" Half
died laughing.
|
janc
|
|
response 278 of 327:
|
Mar 4 04:51 UTC 2003 |
Recently saw on video, "The Fast Runner". This is a Canadian film, set
among Inuit Indians, probably some time in the past (certainly there was
no sign of any white men or modern technology). It apparantly won a lot
of film festival awards.
It's a bit hard to describe. "Really bad" might cover it for most
viewers. But, on the other hand, it just might be terrific. I can't
quite decide. Certainly one gets the strong sense that the film-makers
have somehow never seen any Hollywood films. The actors all appear to
be Inuits, none of whom approach Hollywood standards of beauty. To some
degree it doesn't matter, since most of the time most of them are
bundled up in furs, so you can hardly tell one character from another.
The story is full of love, sex, passion, murder, magic and revenge, but
it all rather drags, acted out by half-frozen people in an artic
wasteland. The cinematography is handicapped by the fact that most of
it is filmed outdoors in the snow, where the light is *never* right.
The fight scenes are odd. In Hollywood movies, fight scenes are super
choreographed. The ones in this movie look like...well, except for some
obvious fake punches, like people having a fight. You ever watch two
random guys have a fight? It doesn't look deadly and graceful. It
looks banal and clumsy and stupid. Two guys rolling around on the
ground, clutching at and hitting at each other. So, is this really bad
movie making or really good movie making?
The story is interleaved with lots of bits of life among the Inuit, so
it feels almost like a National Geographic documentary. All this feels
amazingly authentic. The equipment, the way it is used, the way people
behave makes it seem like a home movie taken among real tribal Inuits a
century ago. My strongest impression is that this is about the least
attractive way of life imaginable. Squeemish vegetarians will not be
delighted.
One comes away from this film having seen many things that one has never
seen before in a movie. Most of them things I could have lived without.
One does not come away feeling terribly entertained, but it certainly is
an interesting experience.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 279 of 327:
|
Mar 4 05:45 UTC 2003 |
It was a Cannes 2001 Winner Camera d'or for
Best First Feature Film. It's on my To See list. Lots of info at
http://lot47.com/thefastrunner/index.html
|
furs
|
|
response 280 of 327:
|
Mar 4 13:19 UTC 2003 |
We rented One Hour Photo this weekend. I really liked it. Robin
Williams was really creepy in it and as a bonus, he was watching a
MSU/Purdue game in his little fantasy. :)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 281 of 327:
|
Mar 4 13:46 UTC 2003 |
American editing is much more tight. We don't see it until
you see editing made up of each shot scene being spliced together.
Example: We see report being dropped emphaticly on a table. Camera
changes to character and he begins to speak, making his point. Hollywood
editing has the character starting to talk while the report is hitting
the table, then mid-sentence the camera switches to the character.
A second or two shaved from the film. But when such tranisions add
up, it can make a film feel choppy or slow.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 282 of 327:
|
Mar 4 16:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gregb
|
|
response 283 of 327:
|
Mar 4 18:47 UTC 2003 |
Re. 280: This is the second(?) film where Williams plays a nutso
character. While It's interesting to see him expanding his acting
skills, I hope he doesn't give up his comedic side like Tom Hanks did.
|
furs
|
|
response 284 of 327:
|
Mar 4 19:40 UTC 2003 |
I agree. I hope that he does both.
Is the other movie you are talking about Insomniac?
|
gregb
|
|
response 285 of 327:
|
Mar 4 19:44 UTC 2003 |
Yeppers. Normally, these aren't my kind of flicks, but I'll probably
rent them just to see Williams doing something different.
|
furs
|
|
response 286 of 327:
|
Mar 4 20:02 UTC 2003 |
I thought Insomniac was ok and thought he was ok in it. He was much
creepier in One Hour Photo. Insomniac is worth the watch, but I don't
think as good as he was in One Hour Photo.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 287 of 327:
|
Mar 4 23:02 UTC 2003 |
re #283: A matter of personal preference, I guess. I won't feel sorry
if I never see another movie in which Robin Williams plays a character
who's heartwarming and puckish.
|
other
|
|
response 288 of 327:
|
Mar 5 01:27 UTC 2003 |
I read that as One Hour Potato...
|
gelinas
|
|
response 289 of 327:
|
Mar 5 03:04 UTC 2003 |
(I've not seen it, but I thought he played a nutso in The Fisher King.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 290 of 327:
|
Mar 5 03:24 UTC 2003 |
Yes, but in that film he was a heartwarming nutso..
|
janc
|
|
response 291 of 327:
|
Mar 5 04:52 UTC 2003 |
Rented "King of Texas". Patrick Stewart and Colim Meany set aside their
Star Fleet togs to do King Lear reset as a Western. I guess this is
mostly a curiousity. But it's not nearly as bad as one might reasonably
expect it to be. Quite watchable, really. Patrick Stewart really is a
good actor, as are several of the other performers.
|
janc
|
|
response 292 of 327:
|
Mar 5 04:53 UTC 2003 |
Oh, and the film is called "Insomnia" not "Insomniac".
|
