Matt Pacini Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Having to watch films like this is the price I pay for being married... And having to watch her husband forcibly removed from the theater for dry-humping the screen after Anne Hathaway came out of that founting dripping wet, is the price my wife has to pay for being married to me... OK, on to the topic: This entire film looked really soft. Would they really make a $40+ million dollar film, and not use sharp lenses? Are there ever out-of-focus prints accidentally made? I was just really surprised, because it was soft, and I mean old-looking, Napoean Dynamite soft. It's a Garry Marshall directed film, so who knows, maybe he just said "hey, let's just use an old zoom, it's good enough for the stuff I did in 1981, so it's good enough now. What do you guys think? Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 More likely to give the film a creamy, soft-focus look that helps keep the female stars looking pretty. Not that Ms. Hathaway needs the help, but Julie Andrews is no spring chicken. It is a romantic comedy after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 8, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2004 Hi, Anne Hathaway? Dripping wet? Gah, we're unlikely to get a release of that over here. The humanity! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 I see your point Mitch, but man, it wasn't just the CU's, it was the whole stinkin' film! It just looked really "Starsky & Hutch" to me, ya know? It's funny, they really had Anne with some serious layers of underwear so you wouldn't see any headlights blinking when she got out of the water, if you get my drift. My first thought was "gee, that must be what married Mormons look like wet". (you know, the extra undies they have to wear...) Can't wait to see her latest film. Total nude scene Phil. I'll have to mail you a DVD of it I guess... Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman_dan Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I hated this movie so very much. Even though I am a High School student I can still see flaws in the Cinematigraphy. I can't belive the amount of money spent on this movie it is horrible to think on what else the money could have be spent on. :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 OK, I'll give you a break since you're a "youngun", but the "think of all the wonderful things this money could have been spent on instad of this" is flawed thinking. As Michael Caine said in his autobiography, even if a film is bad, it's not a waste of money, because it puts 300 people to work for several months. When a film is made, lots of people get to eat & pay the rent, right up to the employees of the theater, or the video rental, etc., etc. And I believe this film did make a profit, that means it's not all at the expense of the investors. Plus, I don't think the film pretended to be anything other than what it was: a teenage girls fantasy, a visual representation of you'd find in the young adult section of your local bookstore. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 OK, I'll give you a break since you're a "youngun", but the "think of all the wonderful things this money could have been spent on instad of this" is flawed thinking. As Michael Caine said in his autobiography, even if a film is bad, it's not a waste of money, because it puts 300 people to work for several months. When a film is made, lots of people get to eat & pay the rent, right up to the employees of the theater, or the video rental, etc., etc. And I believe this film did make a profit, that means it's not all at the expense of the investors. Plus, I don't think the film pretended to be anything other than what it was: a teenage girls fantasy, a visual representation of you'd find in the young adult section of your local bookstore. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted January 4, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 4, 2005 Well hey, 'Phantom of the Opera' doesn't exactly look super crisp either. Or '2046' for that matter. But that was a bad DI also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 Haven't seen either of those yet... The problem with DI seems to be that most of it's done at 2K Is 4K that much more expensive? Some of these films are 60-80 million dollar plus budgets. I would think they could pay for whatever the increase is, but hey, what do I know. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now