logo Sign In

Mike O

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Jun-2006
Last activity
15-Jan-2026
Posts
2,359

Post History

Post
#720163
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I saw someone post this on hometheaterforums.com today. Not sure if this is completely accurate but I thought i'd post this here since it sounded interesting and has to do with the 4K restoration. I personally don't know what to believe because Wielage said that they wouldn't do a 4K release, but RMW did have on their website (not anymore) that they worked on 4K, so there's no way RMW would lie about that, which begs the question of when Mr. Wielage actually wrote this.

"I thought I would pass this information along.
 
Marc Wielage, who worked on the 2004 Star Wars masters, and has 35 years of video mastering experience within the industry (also having worked for Technicolor and Kodak), recently commented on AVS to my question of whether he had any knowledge of any 4K Star Wars work.  I won't post the link as I am not sure if that is allowed here, but he replied to me.
 
To my knowledge, no -- it was all 2K. Note that Episodes 2 and 3 were all shot on HD with 2K visual effects, and none of the VFX in any of the Star Wars films were more than 2K. Some of the early digital stuff in the 1990s wasn't even HD.
It's an interesting thought as to whether they'd consider rescanning 100% of the live-action film footage in Star Wars and recomping all the VFX in 4K. That would be a monstrous expense -- I'm guessing as much as $20M -- so my gut feeling is it's not gonna happen. 
People get very wrapped up in 4K, but I'm not convinced it's the be-all / end-all. I think 4K can look great, and I'm all for people shooting in this format, but the post process for 4K is so torturous and expensive, I'm not sure if the world is ready for it yet. I think it can work, but when you're looking at a project with upwards of 1200 visual effects, and each one takes 2 or 3 days to bounce around to different facilities (in 2K)... multiply that times 4 and tell me what it does to the schedule. 
Having said that: there are more and more TV shows shooting in 4K. Sony showed some 4K demos of The Blacklistback in April at NAB, and I thought it looked fantastic. But that's not a show with 200 effects per episode."

 In other words, so not happening. We'll probably get 2K scans of the SEs at best. 

Post
#719974
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Baronlando said:

Unfortunately I'm sure the disney guys are looking at the numbers for copies sold when it comes to non-new release movies and they're pretty brutal

(http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/bluray-sales/2014  )

I'm sure Star Wars '77 would be a cut above most catalog titles and do fine, but when deciding what kind of money to spend on it: a pricey full restoration vs. a basic catalog treatment, which would be almost all gravy, it's easy to see which path they'd rather chose. I would love to be wrong.

 The physical media market is as dead disco. Just further evidence that we're likely to get the short end of the stick. 

Post
#719876
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

It does deserve a 4K restoration, but I think Richard Dawkins will covert to Christianity before it happens. I think that the above-mentioned is probably the best-case scenario. It would certainly be better than what we've gotten previously, but in terms of film history, it probably wouldn't be the preservation it deserved of look good in the post-Blu-ray generation. And with Kodak going under by the end of the year, 4K would be a best-case for an restoration. But I suppose we'll have to take what we can get. And it's still all speculation at this point, I'm still reticent to believe even partial good news.

Post
#719784
Topic
Last movie seen
Time
A series of adaptations of an individual novel, kind of interesting.

Point Blank- Existential, experimental, iconoclastic 1960s crime thriller in the mold of the then-popular French New Waves movies. Icy, odd, distant, and structurally fairly unusual, even today. Uses the novel's basic premise as the springboard for an odd tale about existential emptiness and revenge. Great performance from Lee Marvin, some stunning cinematography, and very stylish, moody direction. A touch dated, but an interesting curio of a time when American cinema was willing to fund more than blockbusters.

Payback- Directorial debut of screenwriter Brian Helgeland, recut by Mel Gibson's production company in an attempt to make it into Lethal Weapon 5, complete with Gibson's obligatory torture scene and eventually him taking on the whole mob and blowing stuff up. An odd blend of Helgeland's attempt at Stark's aesthetic and a recut by someone going in a completely different direction.

Payback: Straight Up: The Director's Cut- Though not quite as rough as the Westlake novel, Helgeland's original cut hews closer to the original. It's a small movie of a small tale, and works much better than Gibson's knowingly ridiculous cut and plays like a 70s crime thriller Helgeland wants to emulate, though without the existential underpinnings or rawness. Still pretty good for what it is, and probably the closes adaptation outside of Darwyn Cooke's graphic novel.

Full Contact- Though not officially an adaptation of The Hunter, it does have a similar setup. Chow Yun Fat stars in this version from director Ring Lam Ling-Tung, a brutally violet, viciously nihilistic tale of a double-crossed thief who then proceeds to kill his way to revenge. Shot with a sucker-punch visual style and full of grimy, disreputable people, with the unique energy you'll find only in Honk Kong Action Cinema of the period and nowhere else. Interesting, but kind of punishing and so brutal that you eventually run out of people to care about and sort of watch it like a car accident. The famous "bullet-cam" shots still have a certain novelty value.

Elsewhere...

The Crazies- George Romero's tale of infected humans and bureaucracy trying to contain a virus. Intelligent and interesting in the way it deconstruction bureaucracy and social breakdown, but its raw, low-budget quality means that time has been very unkind to it in places. Interesting, but flawed.

The Crazies- Breck Eisener's remake of the above, loses most of sociological clout and depth of the original, but works much better as a thriller, one crackerjack set piece after another, and nicely nihilistic tone and electric energy. If only there were a way to fall between the two.

...28 Days Later- Despite director Danny Boyle's usual hyperactive visual tics, this derivative but highly effective horror thriller is one of the better ones of recent years. Yes, I know "THEY'RE NOT ZOMBIES!" and the infected hew more closely to the infected of the above-mentioned Romero film, but the plot and feeling seem more like Dawn of the Dead, and the whole third act is basically stolen from Day of the Dead. That said, it's done well, there's a nice intelligence behind it, it's properly gory and viscerally frightening when it needs to be, with a nice human edge. Shot on interlaced digital video at 408i, probably in an attempt to call back to the grainy 16mm of yore.

28 Weeks Later- Though this one is shot on grain Super 16 (And looks fantastic, it must be said.), this sequel aims more broadly. I'm not sure what its budget was, but I bet it was significantly higher than its predecessor. There are lot more impressive FX shots and a much bigger scale, though still grounded in human drama. Said human drama isn't quite as effective this time around, but it's a nice backbone for the super-bloody thrills which build to splattery bloodbath finale, ending in a cruel apocalyptic joke. Selfishness has a way of coming back to haunt you, and interventionism is scarier than you bargain for.
Post
#719783
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Harmy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

For everyone wondering whether or not the OUT will EVER be released, we'll know once they release their next blu ray release of the OT. If the OUT is not included, then they're surely going to be asked in interviews, and if they say something like, "those aren't the original vision for the films," or, "those aren't the official versions," then we'll know for sure that we'll never see them released again. If they say, "We're exploring restoration options," or, "the project could take a while," then that means they'll consider it and probably release it eventually. Finally, if it is included (which I honestly think it will be), then there's nothing to worry about.

 Even if it was included, there'd still be plenty to worry about. For one, there is the issue of the transfer - there may be plenty of things to ruin that. Then there's also the possibility, of a fake OOT, where only the most obvious changes are removed from the 4K transfer of the SE they apparently already have. Disney doesn't really have a great track record in this area - lots of Disney movies are DVNRed to death and many are not available in their original theatrical form.

 This. There has been so much damage done to the OOT over the years, so many different versions, they even if they were working on it, there's still plenty tobe apprehensive   about. 

Post
#719731
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

DominicCobb said:

Don't you think using quotes at the start of your reviews feels a little trite? And why are you writing these long reviews? Is that just how you naturally express your feelings or are you trying to get published?

I'm genuinely curious.

 I'm a pretentious asshole. It's supposed to sound grandiose, not trite. So goes to show how unsuccessful I was :p. I'd love to get published (I need to find a new job and fixed my messed-up life), but even if I can't, I might as well put it down in writing. Even if no one reads them, I suppose it makes me feel a little better that it's down. 

Post
#719703
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

Tobar said:

I believe he wants photographic evidence of you at your keyboard whilst you were composing your review.

 

 Nope.  That could be anyone's hands.

 I give up.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

"Stick with me, baby. Stick with me anyhow. Things should start to get interesting right about now."
Bob Dylan

"You'd best be careful what you wish for friend, 'cause I've been to hell and now I'm back again."
Steve Earle

"Keep what is useful, discard what is useless, and add what is uniquely your own."
Bruce Lee Sing-Lung

Buckle up fanboys. Summer is here at at last, with a blast of a blockbuster to set the bar remarkable high. It's hard to believe that it's been almost 15 years since Bryan Singer first kicked off the still-strong wave of superhero films with 2000's X-Men. With top-shelf thespians and sleek direction, Singer followed in the footsteps of Donner and Burton in developing a way to depict comic-book superheroes with seriousness and a degree of intelligence. X2 was even better, a bigger and more complex sequel that set up many possibilities with its finale which unfortunately never came to fruition. Sadly, the X-Men franchise was left floundering directionless with the director's departure, devolving in a serious increasingly poor sequels. Elsewhere, Singer's career disappointed frequently, with the misconstrued Superman Returns and the amicable but unimpressive Jack the Giant Slayer. Finally regaining a degree of sanity with the the Singer-produced First Class, the man who started it all is back in the director's chair to attempt to untangle the franchise's increasingly unwieldy mythology, massive cast, and increasingly irrelevance against Marvel Studios excellent lineup. And he succeeds wildly, with easily the best superhero outing since at least Joss Whedon's The Avengers, juggling the film's ensemble cast, pop gravitas, twisty time-travel narrative, and slick, James Cameron-style action sequences, in adapting one of the comics' most celebrated storylines. It took ten years, but this is finally the sequel X-fans deserved, and more.

The story opens in the not too distant future, when the X-Men are being hunted by massive robots known as Sentinels, designed by eugenicist Bolivar Trask in an attempt to wipe out mutant-kind. Liquid metal monsters to rival the T-1000, they're adaptable and all-but invincible, and outnumber the ragtag mutants by thousands. In a horrifying holocaust in a post-apocalyptic world, the surviving mutants, hunted to near extinction, have discovered a method to travel in time and avoid their pursuers, at least in the short term, allowing the temporary avoid the ever-more powerful hunters. The whole future was instigated my Mystique's murder of Trask in the 1970s, and the time-travel just might offer a solution.But there's a catch: going back any further than a few weeks is too rigorous for anyone to survive. Except maybe a certain iconic adamantium-clawed mutant with healing powers. Going back to 1973 to stop Mystique from assassinating Trask and starting the anti-mutant mayhem, Wolverine finds Xavier a bitter and broken man from the events of First Class, and desperately tries to convince him to and his only remaining pupil, the Beast, to try to change the course of the future with the reluctant help of Magneto, who's slippery personal agenda could prove their undoing at any moment.

Wisely discarding most of the irritating "X-kids" from Vaughn's overrated X-Men: First Class while retaining the effective cast members-Mcavoy, Fassbender, Hoult, and Lawrence-and throwing in a delightful bonanza of cameos from the original cast, giving them a proper send-off after Brett Ratner's hideous X-Men: The Last Stand, Singer swings for the fences. Though the future cast is disappointingly underused as they aren't the meat of the narrative, seeing McKellen and Stewart back is simply wonderful, their chemistry and repartee remaining as delightful as ever and adding gravity to the proceedings even when delivering occasionally clunky expositon, though the majority of the narrative takes place within the past, with Hugh Jackman returning to the role he was born to play in Wolverine. Jackman remains the most perfect bit of superhero casting since Christopher Reeve donned the Man of Tomorrow's cape, Fassbender and McAvoy, especially with Stewart and McKellen alongside them (McAvoy and Stewart meet in one of the film's most inspired passages) as counterpoints, and Lawrence continues to justify her superstar status, blending sexy femme-fatale action chops with surprising vulnerability, even under layers of makeup.

Finally free of the gaudy excesses of Ratner, Vaughn, and Hood, Singer's sleek style, reminiscent of James Cameron at his peak, lends pop-gravity to the proceedings, succeeding in precisely what Vaughn attempted in First Class-tying the films historical setting with social upheavals like the original comics did. Whereas Vaughn felt like he was simply connecting the dots though, Singer properly shakes things up as much as you can in a comic-book world where nothing ever really changes, making full use of his massive budget and getting every cent up on the screen. Though the underutilized future cast feels a bit disappointing, it allows Singer to thin the ever-growing cast to allow for stronger narrative focus. The central fulcrum-the relationship between Mystique, Xavier, and Magneto-allows for an actual character-based narrative with understandable motivations on all sides. As a result, it approaches that obvious but all-too-rare point in blockbuster FX-fests of giving actual weight to the proceedings and reasons to care among the fireworks.

Elsewhere, the jokes are all zingers, particularly some lines for the fans, without spoiling too much, the resolution is wholly satisfying both on its own and a retcon to hideous previous finale, and the set pieces are all rollicking good fun. Singer's action sequences actually make spatial sense, the Sentinels are inspired in design and execution, both as futuristic hunters and clunky 70s tech, the many set pieces executed with the clean choreography of the best pop cinema, reminiscent of James Cameron at his peak, full of clean lines and a clearly delineated sense of who's doing what to whom, ending with an action climax that's both visually spectacular and emotionally satisfying. Singer cites many of his favorites as pop cinema's very best-Nicholas Meyer's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Spielberg's Jaws-and if he's not quite in their company, he's certainly on the right track. Qucksilver is an inspired creation, his bullet-time style FX as a particular highlight. Signer's use of silence, tension, judicious slow-motion, impressive choreography (some of it courtesy of ace second-unit director Greg Smrz, a John Woo alum who's clearly learned his lessons well), and the stylish cinematography and punchy editing of his top lieutenants- superb DP Thomas Newton Seigel and and editor and composer John Ottman, who lend the film a gorgeous, slightly expressionistic color palette (shot in rich digital with some period footage shot gloriously on celluloid, and occasionally hiding some rather claustrophobic sound-stages) and strong rhythm. For once, bloat isn't a problem as the film's outward expansion actually suggests a larger universe (rumored deleted scenes hint at future treats as Blu-Ray extras) and the film's running time flies by.

Setting the bar impressively high for the rest of the summer, X-Men finally earn some of their glory back, suggesting that this franchise, once on life support, might still have some life left in it yet. Sleek, smart, stylish, funny, and thoroughly entertaining, the gang's all here, and they're better than ever. Though this proves a satisfying denouement, a post-credits stinger nonetheless hints at a new villain and future adventures. But if the world is in peril again, we needn't worry. With Singer back at the helm, we're in good hands. It's great to have him back at last. To me, my X-Men. The bar is high for Avengers: Age of Ultron. Finally, the X franchise is as good as it deserves to be again at long last.

Post
#719602
Topic
Interesting: Abrams joins directors trying to save Kodak
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

Mike O said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Mike O said:

Digital is probably the norm in every film school, and eventually, I think the simple economics will win out :(. 

 Yes digital is now the norm and the economics have already won out but that's not the point. This initiative is about preserving the option to shoot on film, not fighting back against the digital tide.

 I think it is the point. If you're entirely trained on digital, why would you chose to shoot film?

 Because they watched a film from the last century.

Mike O said:

It's only the last generation of filmmakers who're desperate to preserve it who've taken the interest.... the next generation aren't going to care.

 See first answer.

Mike O said:

only directors with the box office clout to shoot film are even going to be fighting for it

 See first answer.

;-)

 I'd love to believe that, but even if it's true, you can emulate the aesthetic of celluloid on digital anyway, so I doubt it :(.

Post
#719512
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

"I can see by your eyes you must be lying, when you think I don't have a clue. Baby you're crazy if you think that you can fool me, because I've seen that movie too."
Elton John

"Maybe it's time we stop deconstructing things and start putting them back together."
Alan Moore

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
Plato

And the geek shall inherit the earth. A combination of a pair the massive nerd-TV lords who've rapidly been overtaking Hollywood,Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon and Cloverfieldscribe Drew Godard from J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot school, Cabin the Woods arrives after much publicity. A film that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years following the fallout of MGM, Hollywood's once mighty megabucks studio, Cabin the Woods was finally picked up by Lionsgate, and is at least in a multiplex near you for horror fans ready for a blast-of-fun bloodbath. Cabin in the Woods isn't a bad film, and for a certain fanboy, there's undeniable fun to be had. But I for one can't help but feel I'm outgrowing Joss Whedon. This might've seemed brilliant when I was 16, but these days, I just don't think "clever" is enough.

"You think you know the story?" So the poster proclaims, but of course, you at least partially do. A group of teens fitting into archetypes all head out for a secluded night where there's no cell phone reception, because apparently, even at this point in the 21st century, no one seems to grasp that getting off the grid to a place where you can't call for help is never a good idea. And the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the dumb blonde (ex-Power Ranger Anna Hutchison), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), and the bookish virgin (well, as virginal as anyone nowadays-more in a minute) (sexy former soap star Kristen Connolly). They go to the cabin, ignoring the warnings of the weird old guy at the gas station who hasn't changed since The Hills Have Eyes, but beneath it, there's a massive organization reminiscent of the one in Buffy's fourth season, led by geek goddess Amy Acker, obviously designed to represent filmmakers, who manipulate the characters to make things play out as they want. In the basement, they find a variety of things from numerous horror subgenres, read out a mystic incantation in Latin, and bo and lehold, evil comes to kill.

Presumably, the idea of seeing cliches slightly subverted while still giving the audience what they want is supposed to be clever, as things play out like Whedon's usual genre mishmashing with everyone dying until the survivors break into the compound and unleash hell in the most literal sense. The last half-hour is a gorehound's paradise, as Whedon and Godard unleash every horror fan's dream of bringing together all of the genre and monsters into an action-packed battle. It's fun, certainly. But is that enough? Film buffs and horror fans have see this all before under numerous titles: Evil Dead II, the woefully unappreciatedWes Craven's New NightmareScreamI Know What You Did Last SummerFreddy vs. JasonShaun of the DeadKill BillFright NightFunny GamesArmy of DarknessTargetsPeeping Tom,Behind the MaskShadow of the VampireGrindhouse,VideodromeBody DoublePiranha, and countless others.

Post-modernism has become films about films about films about films about films and culture is now eating itself. At its best, these films off some sort of commentary on the nature of storytelling or the importance of the tales (I'll plug Wes Craven's New Nightmareagain; seriously, see it, it's brilliant.), or find some sort of social commentary like Shaun of the Dead (When Dana sneered "Me? A virgin?" and the Director quipped "We work with what we have." I was hoping for some commentary on changing social mores, but alas, it's just another smart-ass remark.), or at least attempt to do something interesting. But the genre has now been played so thoroughly from every possible angle that Whedon is just adding a new coat of paint, and his brand of smart-ass glibness is less subversive than it is simply smug and annoying. Yes, Joss, I've heard that joke before. The wording is different, the coat of pain is different, but it's stil the same. Godard certainly has skill behind the camera, but he doesn't quite make it into anything more than a fanboy dream, and his hand isn't deft enough to balance his multiple tones and balls in the air and cohere completely. That's fine, certainly. Cabin in the Woods offers up plenty of fanboy fun to be had, but ultimately the film winds up a bit between the two stools, not quite smart enough to be subversive, and not straightforward enough to just be old-fashioned fun like Dog Soldiers. In the end, the movie's self-satisfied tone, affectionate and satirical, but never quite cutting, doesn't make the pieces into the whole I would have hoped for. Again, that's fine, fun is OK, butThe Cabin in the Woods isn't as clever as it thinks. To Whedon and Godard, even the end of the world is just a big cosmic joke.

 Couldn't you just post a link to someone else's review?

Also...really?  REALLY?

 What? And that isn't somebody else's. It's mine. I wrote it. 

 Pics or it didn't happen.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11449095-post268.html

I posed it on Toonzone first, but that talkback frigging disappeared for some reason.

Post
#719508
Topic
Interesting: Abrams joins directors trying to save Kodak
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

Mike O said:

Digital is probably the norm in every film school, and eventually, I think the simple economics will win out :(. 

 Yes digital is now the norm and the economics have already won out but that's not the point. This initiative is about preserving the option to shoot on film, not fighting back against the digital tide.

 I think it is the point. If you're entirely trained on digital, why would you chose to shoot film? It's only the last generation of filmmakers who're desperate to preserve it who've taken the interest. If it's more economical to shoot digitally than on film, then only directors with the box office clout to shoot film are even going to be fighting for it, and once they're gone, the next generation aren't going to care. I'd love to be wrong :(.

Post
#719496
Topic
Interesting: Abrams joins directors trying to save Kodak
Time

It's all over but the crying, this small handful of directors fighting for film aren't going to be able to save it. It's finished. I'd love to be wrong, but I think that after 100 years, the future is finally here and it's going to wipe them away :(. Non-Stop was shot on Fuji. It's a goddamn sad thing, but it is what it is. I wish all of these directors the best, but they're probably the last generation. Digital is probably the norm in every film school, and eventually, I think the simple economics will win out :(. 

Post
#719394
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

"I can see by your eyes you must be lying, when you think I don't have a clue. Baby you're crazy if you think that you can fool me, because I've seen that movie too."
Elton John

"Maybe it's time we stop deconstructing things and start putting them back together."
Alan Moore

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
Plato

And the geek shall inherit the earth. A combination of a pair the massive nerd-TV lords who've rapidly been overtaking Hollywood,Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon and Cloverfieldscribe Drew Godard from J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot school, Cabin the Woods arrives after much publicity. A film that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years following the fallout of MGM, Hollywood's once mighty megabucks studio, Cabin the Woods was finally picked up by Lionsgate, and is at least in a multiplex near you for horror fans ready for a blast-of-fun bloodbath. Cabin in the Woods isn't a bad film, and for a certain fanboy, there's undeniable fun to be had. But I for one can't help but feel I'm outgrowing Joss Whedon. This might've seemed brilliant when I was 16, but these days, I just don't think "clever" is enough.

"You think you know the story?" So the poster proclaims, but of course, you at least partially do. A group of teens fitting into archetypes all head out for a secluded night where there's no cell phone reception, because apparently, even at this point in the 21st century, no one seems to grasp that getting off the grid to a place where you can't call for help is never a good idea. And the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the dumb blonde (ex-Power Ranger Anna Hutchison), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), and the bookish virgin (well, as virginal as anyone nowadays-more in a minute) (sexy former soap star Kristen Connolly). They go to the cabin, ignoring the warnings of the weird old guy at the gas station who hasn't changed since The Hills Have Eyes, but beneath it, there's a massive organization reminiscent of the one in Buffy's fourth season, led by geek goddess Amy Acker, obviously designed to represent filmmakers, who manipulate the characters to make things play out as they want. In the basement, they find a variety of things from numerous horror subgenres, read out a mystic incantation in Latin, and bo and lehold, evil comes to kill.

Presumably, the idea of seeing cliches slightly subverted while still giving the audience what they want is supposed to be clever, as things play out like Whedon's usual genre mishmashing with everyone dying until the survivors break into the compound and unleash hell in the most literal sense. The last half-hour is a gorehound's paradise, as Whedon and Godard unleash every horror fan's dream of bringing together all of the genre and monsters into an action-packed battle. It's fun, certainly. But is that enough? Film buffs and horror fans have see this all before under numerous titles: Evil Dead II, the woefully unappreciatedWes Craven's New NightmareScreamI Know What You Did Last SummerFreddy vs. JasonShaun of the DeadKill BillFright NightFunny GamesArmy of DarknessTargetsPeeping Tom,Behind the MaskShadow of the VampireGrindhouse,VideodromeBody DoublePiranha, and countless others.

Post-modernism has become films about films about films about films about films and culture is now eating itself. At its best, these films off some sort of commentary on the nature of storytelling or the importance of the tales (I'll plug Wes Craven's New Nightmareagain; seriously, see it, it's brilliant.), or find some sort of social commentary like Shaun of the Dead (When Dana sneered "Me? A virgin?" and the Director quipped "We work with what we have." I was hoping for some commentary on changing social mores, but alas, it's just another smart-ass remark.), or at least attempt to do something interesting. But the genre has now been played so thoroughly from every possible angle that Whedon is just adding a new coat of paint, and his brand of smart-ass glibness is less subversive than it is simply smug and annoying. Yes, Joss, I've heard that joke before. The wording is different, the coat of pain is different, but it's stil the same. Godard certainly has skill behind the camera, but he doesn't quite make it into anything more than a fanboy dream, and his hand isn't deft enough to balance his multiple tones and balls in the air and cohere completely. That's fine, certainly. Cabin in the Woods offers up plenty of fanboy fun to be had, but ultimately the film winds up a bit between the two stools, not quite smart enough to be subversive, and not straightforward enough to just be old-fashioned fun like Dog Soldiers. In the end, the movie's self-satisfied tone, affectionate and satirical, but never quite cutting, doesn't make the pieces into the whole I would have hoped for. Again, that's fine, fun is OK, butThe Cabin in the Woods isn't as clever as it thinks. To Whedon and Godard, even the end of the world is just a big cosmic joke.

 Couldn't you just post a link to someone else's review?

Also...really?  REALLY?

 What? And that isn't somebody else's. It's mine. I wrote it. 

Post
#719166
Topic
Lord of the Rings Trilogy - Extended Edition coming to Blu-Ray
Time

Harmy said:

Well, that would be great, as long as it was a proper master with the original colors and a seamless branching option for all three versions (which shouldn't be that hard in the case of LOTR).

Seeing how green-tinted the Hobbit films were,even in the cinemas, I'm not holding my breath though.

 At least they weren't tinted teal. There's a special teal room in hell for James Cameron. Hopefully they'd have branching, UV, and consolidate the SE material from the DVDs in SD onto single BR discs to save space like the BLADE RUNNER rerelease did. 

Post
#719165
Topic
Lord of the Rings Trilogy - Extended Edition coming to Blu-Ray
Time

You know, I've often watched the already-extended versions of these and thought "You know these are good, but I wish they were longer" :p. I'm holding out for the inevitable mega-Middle Earth boxed set, but the EE of BOTFA probably won't be out until NEXT December, and then the boxed set after that. Fuck, I hate waiting. The new trilogy is bloated, self-indulgent, too long, bombastic, and flawed, but Jackson's adventures remind me why I love movies in the first place, and I'll miss Middle Earth :(.

Post
#719163
Topic
Last movie seen
Time
"I can see by your eyes you must be lying, when you think I don't have a clue. Baby you're crazy if you think that you can fool me, because I've seen that movie too."
Elton John

"Maybe it's time we stop deconstructing things and start putting them back together."
Alan Moore

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
Plato

And the geek shall inherit the earth. A combination of a pair the massive nerd-TV lords who've rapidly been overtaking Hollywood,Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon and Cloverfieldscribe Drew Godard from J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot school, Cabin the Woods arrives after much publicity. A film that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years following the fallout of MGM, Hollywood's once mighty megabucks studio, Cabin the Woods was finally picked up by Lionsgate, and is at least in a multiplex near you for horror fans ready for a blast-of-fun bloodbath. Cabin in the Woods isn't a bad film, and for a certain fanboy, there's undeniable fun to be had. But I for one can't help but feel I'm outgrowing Joss Whedon. This might've seemed brilliant when I was 16, but these days, I just don't think "clever" is enough.

"You think you know the story?" So the poster proclaims, but of course, you at least partially do. A group of teens fitting into archetypes all head out for a secluded night where there's no cell phone reception, because apparently, even at this point in the 21st century, no one seems to grasp that getting off the grid to a place where you can't call for help is never a good idea. And the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the dumb blonde (ex-Power Ranger Anna Hutchison), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), and the bookish virgin (well, as virginal as anyone nowadays-more in a minute) (sexy former soap star Kristen Connolly). They go to the cabin, ignoring the warnings of the weird old guy at the gas station who hasn't changed since The Hills Have Eyes, but beneath it, there's a massive organization reminiscent of the one in Buffy's fourth season, led by geek goddess Amy Acker, obviously designed to represent filmmakers, who manipulate the characters to make things play out as they want. In the basement, they find a variety of things from numerous horror subgenres, read out a mystic incantation in Latin, and bo and lehold, evil comes to kill.

Presumably, the idea of seeing cliches slightly subverted while still giving the audience what they want is supposed to be clever, as things play out like Whedon's usual genre mishmashing with everyone dying until the survivors break into the compound and unleash hell in the most literal sense. The last half-hour is a gorehound's paradise, as Whedon and Godard unleash every horror fan's dream of bringing together all of the genre and monsters into an action-packed battle. It's fun, certainly. But is that enough? Film buffs and horror fans have see this all before under numerous titles: Evil Dead II, the woefully unappreciatedWes Craven's New NightmareScreamI Know What You Did Last SummerFreddy vs. JasonShaun of the DeadKill BillFright NightFunny GamesArmy of DarknessTargetsPeeping Tom,Behind the MaskShadow of the VampireGrindhouse,VideodromeBody DoublePiranha, and countless others.

Post-modernism has become films about films about films about films about films and culture is now eating itself. At its best, these films off some sort of commentary on the nature of storytelling or the importance of the tales (I'll plug Wes Craven's New Nightmareagain; seriously, see it, it's brilliant.), or find some sort of social commentary like Shaun of the Dead (When Dana sneered "Me? A virgin?" and the Director quipped "We work with what we have." I was hoping for some commentary on changing social mores, but alas, it's just another smart-ass remark.), or at least attempt to do something interesting. But the genre has now been played so thoroughly from every possible angle that Whedon is just adding a new coat of paint, and his brand of smart-ass glibness is less subversive than it is simply smug and annoying. Yes, Joss, I've heard that joke before. The wording is different, the coat of pain is different, but it's stil the same. Godard certainly has skill behind the camera, but he doesn't quite make it into anything more than a fanboy dream, and his hand isn't deft enough to balance his multiple tones and balls in the air and cohere completely. That's fine, certainly. Cabin in the Woods offers up plenty of fanboy fun to be had, but ultimately the film winds up a bit between the two stools, not quite smart enough to be subversive, and not straightforward enough to just be old-fashioned fun like Dog Soldiers. In the end, the movie's self-satisfied tone, affectionate and satirical, but never quite cutting, doesn't make the pieces into the whole I would have hoped for. Again, that's fine, fun is OK, butThe Cabin in the Woods isn't as clever as it thinks. To Whedon and Godard, even the end of the world is just a big cosmic joke.
Post
#719160
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

I know we've been over this ad nausem, but since the search function and forum setup here are so bad, I'll ask again anyway, didn't Lucas hack up the OOT negatives so badly that restoring them would take considerable effort? I'm seriously finally considering just getting the Despecialized Edition and making due. If Harmy could do it in the basement with rudimentary sources, multimillion dollar studios should be able to. But I defer to the above, I find the notion that the OOT will be anything more than a "bonus material" afterthough to be wishful thinking at this point.