Last Movie You Watched? 6.0

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

No, it wasn't budgetary, it was creative. Because the team ranged in height from Hulk to Black Widow, 1.85 was the best choice for framing in group shots.

He was talking about Bond, hence bolding that part of the quote.

Just noticed that. Oops. Frankly I always liked Bond in 1.85, but that's mainly because it looked really natural in DN, FRWL, and GF and then didn't really do much for TB, IMO. The one Bond I can think of that benefitted from 2.35 was OHMSS because it gave them some really great shots of the Alps, Piz Gloria, etc.

The Lewis Gilbert flicks looked great as well I think.

Makeshift Python wrote:

The Lewis Gilbert flicks looked great as well I think.

Yes, absolutely. Although it has been a long, long, time since I considered YOLT my favourite Bond flick, the widescreen helicopter shot rooftop fight scene in that flick remains one of my favourite sequences.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I was never convinced that it budgetary reasons for LALD. I always assumed that was Hamilton's preference after being uncomfortable using it in DAF.

It was partly budgetary. Anamorphic lenses are more expensive than spherical ones, and they're also a lot slower, requiring more light to get to deeper f-stops for an exposure. Add in process work (i.e. optical printing), art direction and the high speed miniatures associated with a Bond production, and you've got a very expensive proposition. Combine Guy Hamilton's preference for wide angle lenses (which using the full negative area would rack up the price on anamorphic); along with UA and EON's concern about doing another film without Sean, deciding to cut the budget to get a higher box office return; United Artist's distributor at the time who had just done a deal with CBS to show the first 5 Bond films on TV, realising that the scope format (with the pan and scan) was annoying on a TV set, and the new films would get to TV sooner; and the smaller scale of LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (note the absence of Ken Adem, whose sets from THUNDERBALL onwards exploited widescreen) all led to them going for 1.77:1.

So what was it that brought them back to scope in TSWLM?

Adam, Gilbert, and Cubby's decision to make the biggest Bond yet, in the spirit of YOLT and TB.

I believe you mean 1.66:1, do you not?

Yep.

The Ωmega Man (1971)

A fairly entertaining Heston flick. I thought the first 20 or 30 minutes were very effective, but it sorta trailed off for me after he was caught for the first time. I had more fun watching watching Chuck in the previous year's ALPHA AND OMEGA MAN.

I'd like to see the Price version, but I can't stand Will Smoth so I have no interest in the newer one.

THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957)

Madness... madness.

Sometimes Bond needs a more intimate scale. The first three are perfectly shot in European standard 1.66 (matted to US 1.85) and the first two Moores look great in 1.85. The move back to scope was another of Cubby's to re-establish Bond as a spectacle. Sometimes you'd wish they would forget that idea.

Raiders of the Lost Ark. Saw the recent 4K restoration projected on 35mm at an art house. The image is spotless but with very little grain. Color, brightness and contrast have all been tweaked and I'm not sure if they resemble the original entirely. Sound is identical to the DVD. This is what will arrive on Blu-ray pretty soon. Shame as I've always wanted to see an original print with Dolby Stereo.
Perfect movie though. I also love Temple of Doom.

Seeking Justice (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1214962/

Nicolas Cage keeps making crap after crap!

Is he that money hungry that he is just taking any crappy script that comes along his way?

1.25/5

hegottheboot wrote:

I also love Temple of Doom.

Bless you, sir, for not saying CRUSADE.

*waits for the Shark*

The White Tuxedo wrote:

The Ωmega Man (1971)

A fairly entertaining Heston flick. I thought the first 20 or 30 minutes were very effective, but it sorta trailed off for me after he was caught for the first time. I had more fun watching watching Chuck in the previous year's ALPHA AND OMEGA MAN.

I'd like to see the Price version, but I can't stand Will Smoth so I have no interest in the newer one.

I caught Omega Man recently loved the funky score, too bad Ron Grainer didn't get more film work! Its odd how Heston manages to make an unlikeable SOB still quite engaging even holed up all alone in his 'Honkey palace' ^^.

The Will Smith version is too glossy and superficial to really come to life, the CGI rage infected vampires dont really ever seem tangible or threatening.

I have never managed to see the Vincent Price original, have waited for it to show up somewhere for quite a while - I guess I may have to go looking for the dvd.

Yeah, I love the main theme, with Heston riding around like a pimp.

As for Heston making it work. He was a movie star in the truest sense of the word. I got to see him speak once, back in 2001. It was awesome.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

hegottheboot wrote:

I also love Temple of Doom.

Bless you, sir, for not saying CRUSADE.

*waits for the Shark*

I don't understand why people dislike Temple so much. It's straight out of 30's adventure serials and Gunga Din. Beautifully over the top and full of adventure and new snake pits. Wonderfully shot too. And I freaking love Short Round. Crusade is good, but very tired and uninspired as well. The best thing about the film is Connery who has an absolute ball and his interaction with Ford is priceless. The villain is one-note (Imagine Kristatos in this! much better!) as is the girl, and to top everything off they made Marcus and Sallah a pair of bumbling idiots. Also, it is very easy to tell that some scenes were entirely improvised on set. It's really like no one had thought to complete the script before starting. It's not bad, but it's just not the film it should be. And even the opening is a bit too underdone, contrived, and coincidental. That concludes the trilogy as there were never any sequels...

OUTCAST OF THE ISLANDS

Has some narrative problems, but the film is beautiful and Trevor Howard is phenomenal. I'll probably give it another spin at some point, but for now it's a notch below ODD MAN OUT and a notch above THE THIRD MAN and THE FALLEN IDOL.

hegottheboot wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

hegottheboot wrote:

I also love Temple of Doom.

Bless you, sir, for not saying CRUSADE.

*waits for the Shark*

I don't understand why people dislike Temple so much. It's straight out of 30's adventure serials and Gunga Din. Beautifully over the top and full of adventure and new snake pits. Wonderfully shot too. And I freaking love Short Round. Crusade is good, but very tired and uninspired as well.

I see the tiredness you mention as a maturity, like a fine wine that has aged well over 8 years. It's the INDY series grown up, and all the better for it. Personally I love the moving father-son dynamic (which is why I've also got a soft spot for RETURN OF THE JEDI), the sharp post-modern screenplay, Alison Doody's incredibly sexy femme fatal, the farce with Marcus and Sallah (Denholm Elliott was always at his best with comedy - see THE MISSIONARY), and John Williams's powerful, liturgical score.

bondfan06 wrote:

I have been wanting to watch this double bill for a while...

Vertigo

My third viewing and it just gets better. Even though I think "Psycho" has it beat for entertainment value, I'd have to select "Vertigo" as Hitchcock's finest achievement. "Vertigo" requires multiple viewings to fully comprehend it. Its such an intelligently designed and layered experience that I was always captivated by it. Not to mention the fact it has two great lead performances from James Stewart (managing to be unlikeable yet sympathetic all the same) and Kim Novak (icy cold and incredibly sexy) and a memorable score from the great Bernard Herrmann.

Its also Hitchcock's most thematically disturbing film. James Stewart is great as the obsessed detective, something which still remains quite a taboo topic. Hitchcock managed to explore this sickness in a subtle manner and still made Ferguson into a sympathetic character. Its one of his most personal and complex films. Some have complained about how he gives away the twist ending of the film. It may be a bit of a fault, but than you are more able to concentrate on the psychological implications of the story. This is however a tragic romance and is one of the most heartbreaking ones at that.

Obsession

I know there are many DePalma fans on here but for me I've only seen most of his commercial work and I really liked DRESSED TO KILL and CARLITO'S WAY and this is certainly one his better efforts.

I don't think it's better than Vertigo despite the thematic and narrative similarities but it does have a great story by Paul Schrader, the acting, especially Bujold, who exudes a captivating sensuality in the film and John Lithgow as the upbeat business partner to Robertson. Robertson's character was difficult to play as he was constantly in a state of what seemed like eternal remorse, difficult to portray that kind of a mood on celluloid. Hermann's score is great again but the most impressive feature by far was the masterful film editing done by Paul Hirsch . With only 6 years experience under his belt he produced such simple and fluid dynamics that lended some memorable moments to this film. One such piece of magic is John Lithgow's face

That makes a terrific double feature for what both films have in common and also in how they contrast(contains SPOILERS):

http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/pages/obsession/vert-obsession.html

http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/pages/obsession/obsession%20stills.html

This video has SPOILERS as well:

Air Force One

Terrific entertainment, yeah its cliched and contrived but its so earnest and direct in delivering its thrills so who cares. Harrison Ford & Gary Oldman are on brilliant form but the real star is that oh so stirring Goldsmith score all the more wonderful given the HD sound mix on its blu ray .

7/10

Largo's Shark wrote:

I see the tiredness you mention as a maturity, like a fine wine that has aged well over 8 years.

It's more like an aged can of soda that has gone flat.

Harmsway wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I see the tiredness you mention as a maturity, like a fine wine that has aged well over 8 years.

It's more like an aged can of soda that has gone flat.

It's more like a curry that has been marinated overnight, or a beer that's been brewed.

The lack of the serial feel is what hurts the last two Indy movies, it's just not as fun as the first two.

I like my 30's action/adventure serials about powerful occult objects that zap and melt people to be more adult.