Last movie seen — Page 379

Smithers said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

The Bourne Supremacy - 6/10

Unbelievable.

I still don’t like the choice of color timing in the Blu Ray. What baffles me are the people who can’t notice it. I guess I’m more sensitive to color changes than other people.

I do agree that this forum may be a bit original-version-crazy, but it’s like getting the original version of a painting. It’s important to have.

I just don’t understand how someone can say that a light that is now illuminated in the background of one shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark that they likely didn’t notice until reading on this forum that it was changed is on the same level as digitally replacing an original actor with Hayden Christiansen.

The issue was that we never had a proper Raiders reference, and now we do. The video history has been complicated, there are numerous looks let alone sound mixes. The revisionism that started with the Lowry DVD was taken to a higher level at points and the current release is just plain wrong in places. Particularly the sound remix which is completely unnecessary.

Jason Bourne
Well…now we finally get the paint by numbers release that I criticized all the sequels of being. Again the editor steps in to help write the story…which there really isn’t one. Damon is on point as are all the other performers, but all are horribly wasted in this two hour exercise that manages to tell LESS story in a longer runtime than the already story thin 2 and 3. Nothing is explained or even considered-especially WHAT WAS BOURNE DOING ALL THIS TIME? HOW CAN THERE BE MORE CONSPIRACY IF HE 'REMEMBERS EVERYTHING"???
Most harming is the change in cameraman and composer. Now the shakycam is truly incomprehensible, and there is no usage of the recognizable Bourne themes although they get hinted at ad nauseum.
The film is complete filler, a gauge for audience reaction and a boost to people’s careers. But at least it doesn’t sit as bad in the mouth as did LEGACY.
Oh and of course, no surprises, no Ludlum to be found anywhere. Great job Ludlum estate. Crank out another 25 embarrassingly stupid ripoff “books”.

Palatable in places time filler. 1.5/4. The worst entry (barring Legacy) despite having some strengths. Makes Ultimatum look incredibly strong, which of course it isn’t. A waste of talent and money.

People should read the first two books and then reconsider how jaw droppingly bad the films get. The studio should have bit the bullet and never fired Liman as he was the heart of the whole film’s conception. IDENTITY remains the only good film in the series.

Thoughts?

Lord Haseo said:

Dek Rollins said:

Lord Haseo said:

Dek Rollins said:

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Just watched the 35mm version, and it was great! I really hope they can get the other print scanned so that it can be filled in, cleaned and polished.

What is the difference between that and the original? I could have sworn there were screenings of TFA that were in 35mm.

That is the original. A scan of a 1982 35mm LPP was done and was released on the spleen. None of the digital home video releases to this date represent the original version of the film.

I definitely see why someone would covet this. It’s like owning the original Mona Lisa or Girl With A Pearl Earring.

EDIT: Also, what on Earth does TFA having a 35mm release have anything to do with a film from 1981?

Because if memory serves TFA and the 35mm version of Raiders is of the same print/scan…

Say what now?

…and that was the first time I had ever heard of a 35mm film.

You’ve never heard of 35mm film before TFA came out?

SilverWook said:

Surely, there must be a side by side comparison somewhere between the 35mm and the Blu Ray?

Of Raiders? Here’s one:

35mm:

BD:

EDIT: Maybe the thread clogging regarding Raiders should probably stop…

captainsolo said:

IDENTITY remains the only good film in the series.

Thoughts?

Identity and Supremacy are the only two I’ve seen, and so far I agree. I haven’t read any of the books, though. Supremacy was okay IMO, but it just felt like the same thing but Bigger! Shakier! Uglier! and ultimately less interesting. I recorded Ultimatum on TV, so I’ll probably watch it tonight and hope for the best.

In that particular shot, the gold idol looks like a trinket. I really don’t mind the colors on Raiders when I’m watching the blu-ray. Side by side it looks jarring, but in the context of the movie I think it works.

Dek Rollins said:

Lord Haseo said:
Because if memory serves TFA and the 35mm version of Raiders is of the same print/scan…

Say what now?

Yeah, TFA was on one side and Raiders was on the other.
😉

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

Lord Haseo said:
Because if memory serves TFA and the 35mm version of Raiders is of the same print/scan…

Say what now?

Yeah, TFA was on one side and Raiders was on the other.
😉

…Sure let’s go with that 😉

Lol.

So really, what did you mean?

Well duh. I don’t think there’s a single film that wasn’t released on 35mm prints (excluding any digital age films that were/are exclusively on digital projection). TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.

Lord Haseo said:

Dek Rollins said:

Well duh. I don’t think there’s a single film that wasn’t released on 35mm prints (excluding any digital age films that were/are exclusively on digital projection). TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.

Well I don’t think many modern films have screenings in 35mm like TFA did so that has to be somewhat unique.

Dek Rollins said:

TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.

Anyway, this conversation is kind of pointless. I was just curious why you made a connection out of the blue between TFA having film screenings and a scan of a Raiders print.

As surprising number of titles still have prints issued to this day but it’s merely a convenience thing and mostly like the stupid practice of pressing a cd master onto vinyl: pointless.

The whole Raiders debate began years ago and ramped up when I saw the restored 35mm print and immediately noticed the different look and feel. Others felt similarly upon the BDs release and IMAX run. IMO it’s pretty bad when you really get into looking closely and seeing it on the big screen really didn’t play well. Admittedly this is something most people wouldnt realize, but ROTLA is supposed to be a throwback and supposed to look grungy in places. The current release just isn’t right and the sound is just wrong.

But I do admit to being one of the few who truly hated the removal of the snake reflection. They should leave the trilogy alone as it should be visable warts and all.

Also, I started Trek TOS finally.
Took me long enough. 😉

captainsolo said:

As surprising number of titles still have prints issued to this day but it’s merely a convenience thing and mostly like the stupid practice of pressing a cd master onto vinyl: pointless.

Striking a new print of a movie shot on film is not the same as putting a CD master on vinyl. There are still plenty of 35mm venues left in the world.

Throw a 35mm reel and a DCP out a third story window, and see which survives. 😉

Lord Haseo said:

Dek Rollins said:

Lord Haseo said:

Dek Rollins said:

Well duh. I don’t think there’s a single film that wasn’t released on 35mm prints (excluding any digital age films that were/are exclusively on digital projection). TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.

Well I don’t think many modern films have screenings in 35mm like TFA did so that has to be somewhat unique.

Dek Rollins said:

TFA was lucky enough to have a film release.

Anyway, this conversation is kind of pointless. I was just curious why you made a connection out of the blue between TFA having film screenings and a scan of a Raiders print.

I didn’t say TFA didn’t have a film release in general;

I never said you said that.

there were certain theaters that screened it in 35mm as opposed to film.

35mm is film. It refers to a specific size of film, hence the measurement, 35mm. Theatrical releases are generally done with a limited 70mm print release, and a standard 35mm print release. But now that digital projection has gotten to where it’s at, film print screenings for new films are almost totally fazed out.

@ mfm: This is the lightbulb shot I mentioned before.

35mm:

WOWOW (HDTV):

BD:

SilverWook said:

captainsolo said:

As surprising number of titles still have prints issued to this day but it’s merely a convenience thing and mostly like the stupid practice of pressing a cd master onto vinyl: pointless.

Striking a new print of a movie shot on film is not the same as putting a CD master on vinyl. There are still plenty of 35mm venues left in the world.

Throw a 35mm reel and a DCP out a third story window, and see which survives. 😉

True but the sad thing is that practically everything just has a DI printed out so it makes the film transfer a unnecessary step. And boy have they gotten bad at printing optical tracks…I’ve seen some recent prints have downright awful optical backups…

Suicide Squad is not doing so hot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/worst-suicide-squad-reviews_us_57a1e213e4b0693164c34744

http://comicbook.com/2016/08/03/petition-to-shut-down-rotten-tomatoes-over-bad-suicide-squad-rev/