Patrick A Murray

Well, it's a teaser, not even a trailer :-)

While I didn't time the preview, the Avatar trailer felt like about 2 minutes prior to Inglorious Basterds. That's why I considered it a trailer as it showed me alot more than what I'm used to seeing in a teaser.

Actually it felt like it showed me a little of everything except the story.

That's fine if it's a masterpiece and we'll all forget about the trailers/teasers we saw in August, but at this point it can still just as easily be another Waterworld. Meaning high production value terrible story.

The blue cat people (Na'vi), in my mind, look ridiculous. The twin-rotor gunships and 'walkers' look goofy (the first word that came to mind when I saw the trailer).

The blue cat people look like creatures I've seen in other films - or was it a production of Webber's "Cats"? So I was underwhelmed when I saw them in the trailer preceding Inglorious Bastards. Regarding the gunships and other technology, they are to me, the same "look" Cameron used for futuristic technology in Terminator and Aliens. As for the trailer, the images were impressive, but what's the story? I'm not somebody who wants a trailer to give away a movie, but I expect a trailer to give me some kind of synopsis of what the movie is about.

So I'm still waiting to be impressed in a manner that matches the hype. Right now it could be a brilliant story and it'll be Cameron's Sci-Fi masterpiece or it'll be "Waterworld".

The story is most important for me. I'll watch a 2 hour film on Super 8 if the story is compelling.

I didn't think the movie was nearly as violent as advertised. Saving Private Ryan had a lot more violence. Nor did I find the violence to be gratuitous. Not compared to Sado, I Spit On Your Grave, Giallo films etc.

The film is a blatantly fictitious film. The only historical accuracies being that there is a country named France, the Nazis did exist and the senior Nazi leadership consisted of Goebbels, Hitler, Goring et al. The ending doesn't bother me in the least for this reason.

Inglorious Bastards reminded me of Sergio Leone's western masterpieces and I loved the film for it.

Keith, my apologies, I misunderstood this post:

I've only just now worked out why this film has received such overwhelming critical approval.

I'm not going to discuss it further here because I will only get flamed, but Jim Jannard is onto a winner at last.

(As in there is finally a RED-shot film he can legitimately brag about. Maybe now he'll get round to updating the www.red.com website).

 

I'll only make one prediction: I'll bet it doesn't do anywhere near as well in Australia and New Zealand.

 

I'm thinking this could turn into greatest box-office achievement since "The Passion of the Christ," for very similar reasons...

And forgot about your first post. Sorry.

Also, reading your last post, I better understand (I think) the post I quoted.

People do have buttons and billions have been made by filmmakers exploiting those buttons. Porn being the most extreme example in my opinion. Billions of dollars a year in revenue for cheap poorly made garbage "movies". Some guy puts his blood and tears into a brilliant film, but it looses money while people who produce films (video) about a mom sleeping with the cable guy on Tuesday and the gas guy on Friday make bundles of cash.

I'm not complaining, btw, just making an observation. Putting aside porn, lest we get right off track, there are definitely buttons that are pushed in mainstream film. I'm not sure why people would flame you, Keith, it wouldn't bother me to read what exactly you mean.

On this board, in a thread about a movie made on Red One, I presume flame has something to do with film versus digital. :-) My mistake.

I've only just now worked out why this film has received such overwhelming critical approval.

I'm not going to discuss it further here because I will only get flamed, but Jim Jannard is onto a winner at last.

(As in there is finally a RED-shot film he can legitimately brag about. Maybe now he'll get round to updating the www.red.com website).

 

I'll only make one prediction: I'll bet it doesn't do anywhere near as well in Australia and New Zealand.

 

I'm thinking this could turn into greatest box-office achievement since "The Passion of the Christ," for very similar reasons... B)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by a few your comments. Especially the last one regarding "The Passion of the Christ". You appear to have a real dislike for the Red One, which is fine with me as I prefer film too. But it seems from this post that that is the reason why you don't like the film.

Based on critic reviews I've read and viewer reviews on cinemaclock (8.3/10 right now), people like the story. Simple as that. There are cliches in the story, but the premise is fresh and original.

I thought the movie was superb. As someone with a background in poli sci, I didn't think the political overtones were rendered like a sledgehammer to the face. A creative spin on the old aliens visit earth story for a change is good for this viewer. Aside form the Apartheid angle, there's also elements of Nazi treatment of Jews and Corporate Malfeasance.

The movie was primarily an allegory for Apartheid by a South African. This is no secret, it was part of the heavy promotion for the film. It's like when people visit the Eiffel tower and then complain that they were disappointed because it's just a big tower. The film delivered as advertised.

The lead actor was excellent and the story, if you accept the premise of aliens being confined to a ghetto, is believable. Especially the actions of the lead alien character.

From the bottom of page 4:

"Roger and I just don't have enough thumbs to properly rate this new DVD release." - Gene Siskel

Greetings all,

 

I was perusing the widescreen museum and saw this

and couldn't believe my eyes. Now some a-hole decides that

Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur suffer from poor compositions and need re-framing.

 

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/flikfx/default.htm

 

This supposed technology "fixes" the poor compositions

 

And it's all explained in an arrogant know it all manner.

 

Who the hell is behind this???

 

It's a growing trend-armchair hack film reviewers, curators and 'scholars'

who have never shot a frame and now they know better than David Lean and Freddie Young.

 

Unbelievable!!

 

Milo Sekulovich

The site must be a joke. Gene Siskel provides a review of the "new technology" and I can't find anything on the proper museum site or any other information on this technology using a google search of flik fx.

That and the "fix" is always a cluttered mess. I was laughing rather than feeling outraged. If I'm wrong and this turns out to be serious, then I'll be outraged.

That is exactly right. The people who are downloading films and music are often people who don't have the money to blow on these products, and would have NEVER paid for it otherwise.

There is another demographic and possibly the reason why a movie like Dark Knight gets the most downloads, but still breaks box office records. Alot of people, in my experience, download movies they've already seen.

It's been so long since VHS, DVD, Blu Ray rentals and pay movie channels (especially now that we don't have to wait at least a year after a film is released to theatres) that we've probably forgotten about a movie going demographic that once thought nothing of going back to see a favourite movie two or three times during its run. Now, instead of paying 2 or 3 or more admissions, that person can watch the movie in the theatre once and download for multiple viewings at home.

It's still taking revenue away from the studios, but the downloader has at least paid to watch the movie once.

I just bought a Bolex 16mm on Ebay for $379 US. There were one or two other cameras in the $900 US range at the top of the page, can't remember if they were reserve prices with no bids, and one other camera at $300 US.

I just got the camera delivered last night and haven't had time to really go over it. Pretty much what you described with two lenses, original case, reflex etc. I did notice that one of the lenses is missing a lense cap, so I am now on the look out for a lense cap.

This is my first 16mm, I'm very excited and will probably be back with lots of questions.

I wouldn't sell the camera right now, Stuart. Keep the Bolex, put it aside for now for other interests, then return to the camera and fall back in love with it.

In no particular order:

The Seventh Seal

Les Enfants Du Paradis

Metropolis

Barry Lyndon

The Empire Strikes Back