Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[twietee]

"The Lives of Others" an excellent German movie.

Well, I don't like it.

Just saw The American Friend by Wenders. If you haven't seen it already, I'd suggest doing so as it is a very fine film (in my humble opinion). The great Dennis Hopper and Bruno Ganz in a P. Highsmith story? What else do I need. Great images and musical score too.

 

[0098386]

First Christmas film of the season - Die Hard! Picked the blurays up months ago but only just opened them for the holiday. Nothing sets the tone quite like it for me, and they look+sound incredible on bluray.

Next up;
Die Hard 2, Home Alone 2, Bad Santa. Might rewatch all my fave films of 2012 before the year is out too (Prometheus, Avengers, Chronicle and TDKR).

 

[Huntn]

Just watched The Hobbit (3D IMAX, HFR!), everything about it was incredible. The little flutters of Del Toro's style are a very nice touch, but it all fits together really well. I love how light and airy it feels compared to LOTR, at least this early in.

The tech was amazing too. I hope HFR catches on, it was strange at first but action sequences were very easy to follow, and the wide panning shots triggered my fear of heights! There are a few of those typical 3D shots where something deliberately comes out at the camera, but overall it's mostly subtle like Prometheus was.

Makes me wonder if the bluray will also be 48fps.

Only if bluray tech specs allow it? Would you say the 48fps is worth seeing?

 

[twietee]

Makes me wonder if the bluray will also be 48fps.

Only if bluray tech specs allow it? Would you say the 48fps is worth seeing?

Wondering about this too. Was about getting a quality standalone bluray player, but with 4K and all this around not so sure anymore....

 

[0098386]

Wondering about this too. Was about getting a quality standalone bluray player, but with 4K and all this around not so sure anymore....

Could the current transfer rate of blurays handle 4k? After all, they're just disks with files on them. The maximum amount of storage on a BR is quite high (from what I vaguely remember reading in 2006), so I don't think storage at least won't be an issue.

 

[Huntn]

Could the current transfer rate of blurays handle 4k? After all, they're just disks with files on them. The maximum amount of storage on a BR is quite high (from what I vaguely remember reading in 2006), so I don't think storage at least won't be an issue.

Could be a play back issue?

 

[twietee]

Could the current transfer rate of blurays handle 4k? After all, they're just disks with files on them. The maximum amount of storage on a BR is quite high (from what I vaguely remember reading in 2006), so I don't think storage at least won't be an issue.

50GB I believe. The one I was thinking on says '1080p/24 video output', so really not sure, but since I've no clue about all of this, I was going to check out some hifi-forum anyway.
What bugs me is the thought, I read that somewhere, that with a revisited copyprotection, the player won't be able to play that disc. I was under the impression that a firmware update whatever would solve this but if this is going to be true I'm not paying $1000 for a e.g. Denon bluray player. But sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Mav451]

So I saw the Hobbit yesterday morning.

I think 3D @ 48fps will be polarising, but I kind of liked it. It did take some getting used too, but overall it makes 3D watchable I think. No more motion blur, everything looks very, very crisp.

It was the first time I truly appreciated the new 4K projectors used in my choice cinema, everything was so vivid.

Just a side note though: Knowing that he has three films to work the plot into, Peter Jackson takes his sweet time with the pacing. It's exciting in places and overall I loved it, but yeah...just bear that in mind.

My friend saw it last night and warned me on that exact thing haha. He still gave it two thumbs up though. I'm probably gonna stick to watching it 2D first though

 

[Shrink]

Last night I saw "Citizen Kane"...again! That film is so good in so many ways, which have, of course, been discussed far more cogently than I ever could...but I'll run my mouth for a couple of paragraphs anyway.

The direction and cinematography,in particular, are superlative. Greg Toland's incredibly creative and innovative use of deep focus, especially in the scenes in the cavernous Xanadu sets, were breaking new paths in cinematography. Using both editing tricks, and actual in-camera techniques, he created an effect, which can be done easily with current technology, but at the time was groundbreaking. Welles' use of low (and, at times, very low) angle camera angles to create extremely dramatic effect was also amazingly effective.

The script, set design, and acting were also remarkable. Most of the primary players in Welles' Mercury Theatre company went on to notable careers. Some, like Joe Cotton, as lead players, and others, like Everette Sloan, George Coulouris, Agnes Moorehead and others, in supporting character roles.

And then there is the wonderful story about the REAL meaning of "Rosebud" (possibly apocryphal). Not the meaning in the movie (lost love, lost innocence, even as a weapon against those Kane hated), but the REAL meaning as William Randolph Hearst used it. The story has it that "rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for a very intimate portion of Marion Davies anatomy. When Hearst heard about Mankiewicz using it in the movie, he was not too pleased.

Anyway, it's an absolutely essential film to be seen be any film enthusiast, and arguably one of the best movies ever made.

 

[twietee]

Last night I saw "Citizen Kane"...again!

Ha! And I thought you stopped watching movies.

Be honest, how long did it take you to write this petite review? A week?

Although I agree about the importance of Citizen Kane, which can't be underestimated, it isn't particularly one of my personal 'hot-shots', so to speak. You've seen Welles' Macbeth? I'd chose it over Kane, but please don't ask why....no clue. Maybe because it's shorter??

 

[Shrink]

Ha! And I thought you stopped watching movies.

Be honest, how long did it take you to write this petite review? A week?

Although I agree about the importance of Citizen Kane, which can't be underestimated, it isn't particularly one of my personal 'hot-shots', so to speak. You've seen Welles' Macbeth? I'd chose it over Kane, but please don't ask why....no clue. Maybe because it's shorter??

I'm flattered (I think) that you thought it took a long time to write my screed. Actually, it just came out easily in about 5 minutes. But it's not like I have never thought about the film, so you could say it took years!!

I have not seen Welles' "MacBeth", I'm embarrassed to say, but based upon your comment I will give it a look the next time it comes on.

"Citizen Kane" runs 119 minutes, if I recall from last night. (OK, I looked it up!! ) I enjoy it so much, I don't want it to end. But I can certainly understand that if you are not enthralled by it, it can seem long.

 

[twietee]

I'm flattered (I think) that you thought it took a long time to write my screed.
"Citizen Kane" runs 119 minutes, if I recall from last night. But I can certainly understand that if you are not enthralled by it, it can seem long.

Ok, now I had to look up what flattered means. Thought quite the opposite first....no really, 119min is almot shortish nowadays. Thought it was much longer. Not saying I don't enjoy watching it, though - it just wouldn't be in this bag I'd take onto that lonely Island (with a telly and some electricity).

Macbeth is quite cool....moving trees just like Tolkin did it (fat rip-off ). Not sure what I'm going to watch tonight. Any suggestions?

 

[iJohnHenry]

Any suggestions?

You want chilling and Wells at the same time, I offer you The Third Man.

 

[Shrink]

Ok, now I had to look up what flattered means. Thought quite the opposite first....no really, 119min is almot shortish nowadays. Thought it was much longer. Not saying I don't enjoy watching it, though - it just wouldn't be in this bag I'd take onto that lonely Island (with a telly and some electricity).

Macbeth is quite cool....moving trees just like Tolkin did it (fat rip-off ). Not sure what I'm going to watch tonight. Any suggestions?

I'm still cabled up, so I tend to watch whatever is on TCM (Turner Classic Movies), a classic movie station (unless it's a musical!).

You can't go wrong with "The Asphalt Jungle", a wonderful late noir film, "Sweet Smell of Success", an amazing later noir film, or, of course, "The Third Man", an amazing film (which I'm sure you have already seen, but is always worth another watching if you haven't seen it lately) if, for no other reason, than the score and the wonderful use of Dutch angle photography.

EDIT: Oops, iJohn got in there before me with "The Third Man" while I was typing my response!!

 

[twietee]

"The Asphalt Jungle", "Sweet Smell of Success", "The Third Man"

Thank's for the recommendations you two. Helped me with finally deciding to watch Touch of Evil (not so much with the decision which version to choose - there are apparently four (!)). Anyway, good movie and I really wanted to see Welles die, what generally happens quite seldom to be honest.

 

[Shrink]

Thank's for the recommendations you two. Helped me with finally deciding to watch Touch of Evil (not so much with the decision which version to choose - there are apparently four (!)). Anyway, good movie and I really wanted to see Welles die, what generally happens quite seldom to be honest.

Good movie, Charlton Heston notwithstanding (playing a Mexican!!??).

The opening tracking shot is worth the price of admission. There are a number of other very long takes (the "shoebox" scene, for example) which I always find interesting if done well.

There's a Hitchcock movie (generally not my favorite director, with a couple of exemptions) called "Rope". It's done in very long takes, ranging from about 6 minutes to 10 minutes (the longest uncut take possible at the time because the camera film cartridge only held 10 minutes of film). Not the greatest film going, but interesting for the editing (and the horrendous miscasting of Jimmy Stuart).Worth seeing just for the editing and long takes.

"Touch Of Evil" is, IMO, a great choice...good film.

Of course, you ignore iJohn and my suggestions at your own peril!!!

 

[twietee]

Good movie, Charlton Heston notwithstanding (playing a Mexican!!??).
(...)
Of course, you ignore iJohn and my suggestions at your own peril!!!

Yeah, since they are so darn repetitive, I do pretty much so - especially on my own peril.
But Shrink here's some food for thought: recommend me a movie from the 90s+ and I'll watch it - no matter what.


re Touch of..: I totally missed Heston, so surprised when I saw the credits rolling. Shame on me? No, good acting! Although Planet of the Apes is probably the only one I saw from him so he's not that familiar to me. That brings me to one point of 'light criticism': that would never happen with Orson Welles. It's hard to 'forget' about him personally, especially since he's kind of omnipresent - at least in most of the films I know of.

The opening shot was great, as was the final 'bringing down the bull' scene under the bridge.

 

[Shrink]

Yeah, since they are so darn repetitive, I do pretty much so - especially on my own peril.
But Shrink here's some food for thought: recommend me a movie from the 90s+ and I'll watch it - no matter what.


re Touch of..: I totally missed Heston, so surprised when I saw the credits rolling. Shame on me? No, good acting! Although Planet of the Apes is probably the only one I saw from him so he's not that familiar to me. That brings me to one point of 'light criticism': that would never happen with Orson Welles. It's hard to 'forget' about him personally, especially since he's kind of omnipresent - at least in most of the films I know of.

The opening shot was great, as was the final 'bringing down the bull' scene under the bridge.

OK, movies from 90's plus...

I can't think of too many movie names, but I can think of some actors whose movies I would see because of their presence. One movie I can recommend is "The General" - 1998, with Brendon Gleeson, one of my favorite current actors. Any movie with Edward Norton, Giovanni Ribisi (not all great movies, but interesting performances), Robert Carlyle, Jim Broadbent, Samantha Morton, Laura Dern, Ray Winstone...I'll think of others.

Oh, yeah, another quirky movie with Ray Winstone and Ben Kingsley is "Sexy Beast". Kingsley is sooo strange...I really liked it.

Give me some time to come up with more post 90's movies...there are definitely ones I have enjoyed. Definitely go for "The General"...Brendon Gleeson is, IMO, brilliant in it.

BTW: holding Charlton Heston's politics aside, I think the man can't act a lick. He just keeps playing Moses and declaiming his lines. He wouldn't know how to inhabit a character if his life depended on it. Stiff, wooden...useless.

Just one man's opinion...

BTW...currently watching "The Expendables" Total crap, but fun and I like Jason Statham. See "Lock, Stock and Two Barrels" and the original "Transporter" for good junk.

 

[twietee]

BTW...currently watching "The Expendables" Total crap, but fun and I like Jason Statham. See "Lock, Stock and Two Barrels" and the original "Transporter" for good junk.

Woah! At first I was afraid you'd come up with Titanic but The Transporter?! Glad you brought up Sexy Beast first, which I actually haven't seen, and The General. I'll thankfully check them out. Since you like Kingsley-style and Laura Dern, did you see Wild at Heart already? I can highly recommend that movie.

And Heston, well, I've seen the first of the Apes movies and found it awesome, despite him. And I always find a good excuse not buying one of these 3h bible movies, so don't know about his Moses interpretation. Since I'm very fond of Vincent Price, especially The Last Man on Earth, I was always curious about the remake called The Omega Man starring Heston, but ultimately never really bothered to buy it, so yes, one could say I'm not too keen on his perfmances either, and we're not even talking politics here.
But strangely, his Vargas in Touch of Evil worked well for me.

 

[Shrink]

Woah! At first I was afraid you'd come up with Titanic but The Transporter?! Glad you brought up Sexy Beast first, which I actually haven't seen, and The General. I'll thankfully check them out. Since you like Kingsley-style and Laura Dern, did you see Wild at Heart already? I can highly recommend that movie.

And Heston, well, I've seen the first of the Apes movies and found it awesome, despite him. And I always find a good excuse not buying one of these 3h bible movies, so don't know about his Moses interpretation. Since I'm very fond of Vincent Price, especially The Last Man on Earth, I was always curious about the remake called The Omega Man starring Heston, but ultimately never really bothered to buy it, so yes, one could say I'm not too keen on his perfmances either, and we're not even talking politics here.
But strangely, his Vargas in Touch of Evil worked well for me.

I, too, enjoyed "The Last Man On Earth", although to my surprise, Price's performance (taking into account hammy style, which doesn't bother me for some reason) was ripped to shreds by both reviewers and viewers...I don't know why. I saw "The Horla" the other day...another dandy Vincent Price performance...accepting that Price will never be mistaken for Ben Kingsley. Price's style is old school, but wonderful nonetheless.

Heston was his usual incredibly awful self in "The Omega Man", a fairly dopey movie. However, it is worth watching to see the marvelous performance of Edward G Robinson in, what I believe, was his last role. He was excellent!

Heston is a man uncomfortable in his skin. Watch him walk, or worse, watch him run...everything is flying in different directions. He is the most un-graceful man I have ever seen. It makes me uncomfortable just watching him move. As for acting, as I said before, he reads his lines like an uncomfortable high school student. He never inhabits his roles...he just announces his lines.

I will give you that he was not as awful as usual in "Touch Of Evil"...which I credit to the director's skill in somehow toning down his Moses-like pronouncements.

Do see "The General"...Brendon Gleeson is so good!!!

 

[twietee]

Heston is a man uncomfortable in his skin. Watch him walk, or worse, watch him run...everything is flying in different directions. He is the most un-graceful man I have ever seen. It makes me uncomfortable just watching him move. As for acting, as I said before, he reads his lines like an uncomfortable high school student. He never inhabits his roles...he just announces his lines.

I will give you that he was not as awful as usual in "Touch Of Evil"...which I credit to the director's skill in somehow toning down his Moses-like pronouncements.

I laughed out loud at that! But despite Welles knowing how to direct his actors, I think it works in The Touch of Evil, because Heston has to play a stranger, the 'foreigner', so it is actually understandable that he moves and behaves 'inhibited' (?), awkward and forced.
I'm aware that he played the (über-)foreigner rather often, but in these films he just shot down everybody else.

 

[Shrink]

I laughed out loud at that! But despite Welles knowing how to direct his actors, I think it works in The Touch of Evil, because Heston has to play a stranger, the 'foreigner', so it is actually understandable that he moves and behaves 'inhibited' (?), awkward and forced.
I'm aware that he played the (über-)foreigner rather often, but in these films he just shot down everybody else.

I like your interpretation of Heston's "awkwardness" in the Welles' film. Call it good casting, knowing he would look awkward and using it for the sake of the film. Good call!!

I thought you would get a chuckle out of a comment that NathanMuir made on another thread. I had posted a brief comment about a movie which he mocked, He then commented that the discussions on this thread, especially between you, Scepticalscribe and I as discussions between "pseudo-intellectuals".

So take care, don't say anything too intelligent or insightful...it is unacceptable to NathanMuir!! Apparently, only trite, cliché and simple minded comments are acceptable.

 

[jumpmandds]

Kelly divine is Buttwoman

 

[twietee]

NathanMuir

whatever.


Watching Kuroneko right now. Could be something for you Shrink: black and white, horror and fairly old.

Always enjoying conversations with scepticalscribe and you, whether pseudo or not: Keep 'em coming!

 

[Huntn]

The Three Musketeers (2011)- Gawd, this is the kind of movie that makes me suspicious of remakes. Mindless, pathetic excuse for entertainment. The sword fighting was so "careful" and choreographed, that it SUCKED big ones. * Keep in mind this vitriol is based on what came before it in the most excellent book and decent 1973 movie with Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch. I was not a fan of the 1993 movie with Charlie Sheen either... Please no more!

* You want some good sword fighting? See the Princess Bride. At least it was believable.