Jump to content

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Basic Member
  • Posts

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

  1. That is terrible; one more thing a person needs to waste time checking, on Web sites, message boards, and magazines, in order to know what one’s buying. :rolleyes: This is where I need the EU to come marching in and introduce yet another regulation demanding the source format be written clearly and in big whopping letters right there on the front of the Blu-Ray Disc. I must say that I flinched a bit and am now a tiny bit less resolute in my determination to buy a 4K TV, even though I somehow think UHD is definitely coming, with streaming services offering it and the upcoming Olympics being broadcast in it. On the other hand, with the amount of money needed to replace the projectors in cinemas and diminishing (?) audiences, it really does seem like a long shot. “A long, long, long time” indeed. You and I both know he won’t get it for Blade Runner.
  2. Well, the BBC is not really considered a top-notch technology-news source, but yesterday they had this article about TV manufacturers stopping the production of 3D TVs: “So long, 3DTV – we won’t miss you”. Then today it was taken up by The Daily Mail: “Pulling the plug on a hi-tech turkey: Last two major 3D TV manufacturers announce they will no longer be making the sets”. I bet some of you knew from the get-go that 3D movies are pointless and that this was just a matter of time.
  3. So... Basically, an UHD Blu-Ray Disc might be smoke screen? If Arrival was finished in 2K, then there’s no point in buying a 4K disc to see it on? Here I presume that upscaling the resolution of a movie results in lower quality. Am I right? Even though I wouldn’t be able to spot that lowering of quality of the picture?
  4. I dunno, Tyler... I just keep slapping myself around for not having seen in it what you did and just described. The truthfulness kind of felt forced. What hardship exactly did she go through? I mean, she worked in a coffee shop and got rejected at auditions a thousand and one time. It’s not exactly slavery. It also felt like an appalling thing that the filmmakers seemed to imply, or perhaps it is only I that inferred it, that she was somehow better than the rest and above a job in a café. It all screamed: “I am made for great(er) things.” Then that moment when she comes back as a big movie star... Yuck. On the other hand, if you consider her childhood story, perhaps I’m wrong, and it was all sweet and actually adorable. He, on the other hand, certainly managed the unmanageable: all of a sudden going from a piano player in a bar to becoming an owner of a hot new jazz club. Talk about a Hollywood fantasy... I just remembered yesterday why it was worth seeing. It’s the following exchange: Sebastian: What do you mean you don’t like jazz? Mia: It just means that when I listen to it, I don’t like it. :lol: Everything else – not bad, but far from splendour of a lost age. I don’t know what’s stopping me from calling it, say, a bad movie. I guess confusion and allowing for there being something I missed, so I’m still undecided. It’s funny that this morning as I was going through the news, just after I asked about this yesterday, I bumped onto an article on BBC’s Web site: “Has La La Land been overhyped?” Perhaps there’s something to that marketing-research story of creating divergence between the general public and the crtics for a film to be successful.
  5. Thank you. :) I forgot my own thoughts: thank you for reminding me that I “brilliantly” figured it out, d’oh, some time ago about it all being a simple “expose for the sky” kind of thing. But I’m also grateful for finding out something new: that thing about reddish rays and how what’s great about it is the camera’s angle, perspective, and composition (didn’t know that), and not that much when it was shot – it’s just a simple, but beautiful, additional layer. I almost felt that that helicopter flying over water from Arrival was an homage to Sicario, though I realize that that’s probably stretching it and that it’s been done before. Perhaps I’ve seen or, better, come across a few movies with this sort of bluish twilight photography in a short amount of time so I got the wrong impression that that’s a thing now in cinematography.
  6. Thank you, Bradley! That does clear a few things. I didn’t want to sound mean, but I really think, at this moment, that it’s not that good. I also feel that it would have been better if they played the story straight, instead of that detour and the ending. Much better to do a full-blown happy-end love story. This somehow felt forced and divergent. I was quite hesitant to say anything, partly because the other day I heard a critic on TV say how much allusions to previous works it had in there and felt illiterate for not spotting them. Perhaps had I spotted them, it would’ve made for a better overall impression in the end. I didn’t hate it, just so you know, I’m actually still a bit confused as to what would be my final mark, but I do feel it’s not the second coming some make it to be.
  7. Well, I expected a lot of gloriously lit Los Angeles, but I can’t say I got much.
  8. Could someone explain what’s the deal with this film? I saw it, more than a month ago, I think. I feel that it is being horrifyingly overpraised. (What’s funny and infuriating is that I have this feeling that all the news anchors seem to praise it, yet when they ask one another “Have you seen it?”, the answer is almost always “No.” :lol: :ph34r: ) I get it that Hollywood love films that sing its praises, but that alone can’t explain for this amount of fawning over this movie.
  9. I'm going to ask pretty much the same thing I asked in the thread about Arrival. Regarding that special-ops scene where their silhouettes appear against the nautical-twilight sky... How does that work? You check when the nautical twilight begins, you make sure everyone and everything’s is there at the time and you shoot? It doesn’t matter if there are perhaps less clouds than you might like? And also, is there any equipment out of the frame or is it all done in available light? :)
  10. Now Tyler got me intrigued about this film. I've been thinking whether too see it after watching the trailer in the cinema, but ultimately decided not to do it, and I'm now sorry. It reminded me of so many movies from the past, many of which were terrible, both in hindsight or in the very moment I saw them first. Oh, well. The Blu-Ray Disc and the 4K UHD BRD will be out on 14 February. :) I do have a question, though. I played the trailer again, and there's a shot of a helicopter flying over water with some clouds partly covering the sky behind. It seems to have been shot during naval twilight. Is that shot that good purely by chance or did they somehow manage to know in advance how to get what they wanted? It's easy to calculate when the naval twilight starts, but those clouds to appear in that way might take some time.
  11. No luck for Café Society. I never actually thought it would be nominated, but I think I first someone mention it somewhere, and then I saw the ad in American Cinematographer. But no, I was almost sure it wouldn’t be on the list. With a 90 %, reliability I think this will go to La La Land.
  12. The nominees are: Bradford Young for Arrival Linus Sandgren for La La Land Greig Fraser for Lion James Laxton for Moonlight http://oscar.go.com/news/nominations/oscar-nominations-2017-view-the-complete-list-of-nominees
  13. This is an article from The Wall Street Journal about how technology is changing the ways to film a close-up. It is behind a paywall, though. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-close-up-close-up-1485000003
  14. Adam posted the official trailer in another thread – here it is: A colourist at another message board said this when he saw the first, leaked, trailer: “Khondji always goes all out on his grades.” It’s one of those things you notice, but somehow hits you in a “How come I didn’t put it that way?! Because it’s true!” way once you see it.
  15. Thank you, Adam! It looks a bit different from the leaked one I posted a few months ago. :)
  16. Just in case some of you missed it: I know I have (I was about three months late).
  17. Didn’t see this before. I could just end this by replying dryly: No. This never ends. Everybody is so hostile and mean. Ever since I first stepped foot in here. One is not even allowed to learn something. For your information, I started this whole Woody Allen thing not because of Woody Allen, but because when Café Society news broke about Vittorio Storaro photographing it, I thought that was big news, for all sorts of reasons. And I made it my point to post about everything related to cinematography in that film, however small bit of news or connection to cinematography there might be. I thought people would find out something they otherwise wouldn’t. And I think it was the right way and that I did the right thing. And also, it’s not like I posted 20,000 posts in two months. More like 300. I don’t see what’s the big deal.
  18. It starts. http://www.woodyallenpages.com/2016/09/woody-allens-2017-film-begins-production-in-new-york-justin-timberlake-spotted/ Friday and Tuesday it’s the beach: http://www.woodyallenpages.com/2016/09/extra-woody-allens-2017-film/
  19. Now you’ve ruined it for me. :) I don’t know what to think now. When I first saw the trailer a couple of times, it looked lovely. But now I’m starting to doubt it. What is it that you didn’t like? I keep re-watching thinking I will figure out if there is something drawn over the windows outside. Like some sort of thin transparent material or something like that.
  20. It looks lovely, albeit somewhat underexposed at all times? Looks digital as well (what else?). :) I love the colours in the costumes – people weren’t afraid of them in the sixties, it seems.
×
×
  • Create New...