Poltergeist, 'cause I happened to notice the Blu-Ray while picking up Dream Theater's latest (which I was doing because of this compulsive obsession that kicks in every time I see a new Dream Theater album cover).
The movie's still as well-made as I remember it from when I was a kid, hasn't aged as badly as I thought it would have. And thanks to the new cleaned-up transfer, the picture quality is pretty damn good.
Seeing it now also reminds me of The Orphanage, because Poltergeist is one of the movies that inspired it. To everybody who dismissed The Orphanage as Silent Hill-inspired drek after watching the trailer, kindly see the fucking movie first. It's a brilliant, brilliant piece of work.
It's a good film, but I wouldn't call it brilliant myself - mainly because I feel that The Devil's Backbone tells a similar tale so much better. The Orphanage relies too much on its twist IMO, which is a shame, because twists, unless done brilliantly, have become rather hackneyed in certain kinds of movies.Originally Posted by Sulphur
Then again, I have to say that seeing the film at Qatar airport at 4am after not getting much sleep for three weeks? Not the best of times to watch anything.
I'd say the film works independently of the twist, because it works on two levels; viewed one way, you could say that it's not a ghost story at all. To be frank, I appreciated the twist when it came, probably because I tend not to second-guess where the plot in a movie is going at the time if it's not incredibly obvious. It's part of this built-in suspension-of-disbelief mechanism that kicks in if I sense a movie's probably going to be good..
The script's tight, and while perhaps not as symbolic or allegorical as The Devil's Backbone or Pan's Labyrinth, it's the interlocking parts and sheer craft evident - in almost all aspects of the movie, from the cinematography to the audio - that wins it my admiration. My subsequent second viewing of it with friends only strengthened that opinion.
Wow, apparently it is worth quite a bit!I want the Laserdisc! I only have it VHS.
...still have all my lasers, including an unopened Casablanca 50th anniversary edition box set.
I tried to buy it a few years back off of eBay, and gave up at $120.00.
...though I think it was the Japanese release. Still, I've got my LP of the soundtrack.
I willOh my, here comes a new generation of fans, which will be no longer used to it's original original Technicolor scheme, shaking titles and clumsily inserted unicorn dream!
And certainly watch the Dangerous Days documentary on Disc#2 if you haven't already.
Hehe, that sounds hilarious just by the description. The Unicorn dream was probably one of the weirdest bits of the film.
Apparently Harisson Ford hated Blade Runner(at least according to Wikipedia), he had a lot of disagreements with the director.
That production wasn't known in the industry as 'Blood Runner' for a long time afterwards just for nothing.
I like the unicorn dream.Why take it out? It added a certain something that made the movie better.
Good thing about BR though is that no matter what version you prefer, it is still available.
The dream still is in the Final Cut, but it's been re-cut and now looks (and sounds) much better than in Director's Cut, exactly like Scott originally wanted it to have.
Back in '81, around the time when several assembly cuts were made, the tandem of producing financiers came to conclusion that the dream had no sense in the picture and added just more unintelligibleness to already unintelligible film. "Sophisticated television people," as Scott has nailed it. They basically wanted a raw sci-fi thriller, not an artsy, noirish, Nietzchean mind fucker. So they wanted to take the dream out and have Ford's explanatory voiceover in the film.
The original footage of Deckard dreaming of an unicorn wasn't available at the time when Director's Cut was made in stress and ironically with little creative input from Scott. So the unicorn footage which was available at that time was tackily inserted into the original footage, but it looked a bit out of place in DC. It's a little big miracle that the original negatives have been found later in some archive, so they could digitally transfer them via 4K digital intermediate process. Restoration of an old film from positives does not give as good result, because it's basically a "one generation away" copy.
Last edited by Rogue Keeper; 11th Sep 2009 at 08:58.
I tried watching The Science of Sleep, last night--what a messy, self-indulgent film.
..much like Blade Runner has become with all the different cuts.
How the fuck is Final Cut a "messy, self-indulgent film"
no wait I don't care, I've heard it all before and it's all horseshit bawwing because Blade Runner isn't "perfect" therefore it sucks
If there is any self-indulgence behind all the versions, it's self-indulgence of the film's troubled history and demands/expectations of different audiences.
London to Brighton
A british gangster movie that feels as harsh and uncompromising as Guy Ritchie's ouvre is fatuous caricature. From the moment a girl and a woman rush into a bathroom stall, the girl sobbing hysterically, the woman all beat up, you know this isn't going to be an easy watch. If you can stomach morally bankrupt people and subjects such as child prostitution without the distance granted by endless camera trickery, it's pretty damn good though, despite a non-existant budget, with excellent performances from a cast of unknowns.
So the Director's Cut wasn't definitive enough (which in itself was already yet another in a line of previous cuts), Scott had to go back and do yet another cut? You're right, that's not self-indulgent--it's a bloody grab for cash.
Go read the history of the various cuts of the film (particularly Scott's involvement in the Director's Cut, i.e. very little) and come back and say that.
Incorrect. See Chapter XVII. of 'Future Noir : Making of Blade Runner' by Paul M. Sammon (2007 Edition) to realize that Scott really wasn't in full creative control of the Director's Cut. Like I suggested, blame the troubled history and demanding audiences from self-indulgence. And Warner for the greed, maybe.
Edit : god dammit dethtoll
Last edited by Rogue Keeper; 11th Sep 2009 at 23:47.
I love it when the little hairs on the back of dethtoll's neck stand up like that.
That actually sounds interesting.
Yesterday I watched the movie "9" in the cinema.
A CGI-animated post-apocalyptic movie.
It's based on a short story that the director made earlier in 2005.
That short movie can be seen on YouTube. But I advise anyone to not watch it until they have seen the longer movie in the cinema.
The first half of the story is ok. The second half of the story is bleh.
But the visuals are very nice. Very nice.
Pretty good CGI. Stunning artwork. I really liked the whole athmosphere of the movie. The modeling of the characters and monsters is fresh. The movement very fluent.
I like to see movies like this. Because I kinda hope that computer games will look like this within the next 5 or 10 years. It's a glimpse of the future. I also like it that new artists use modern technology to make their artworks. When I grew up, artists only used paint to make paintings. And maybe make sculptures out of clay. If you did anything else, you were not artistic, not expressing yourself. You were cold, you had no fantasy. But now we have people who use the lastest computer techniques to create these wonderful artistic fantasy worlds. It makes me smile.
"9" is maybe not a must-see movie for everyone. But if you were planning to go to the cinema, and don't know what to watch, go watch "9". Certainly if you are a gamer.
I Googled this and was SO DISAPOINTED when it turned out to be made up. >:|
I'll second that. I watch it once a year.
Watched TORA! TORA! TORA! last night. Watched it a number of times over the years. Very well done movie.
I've been catching up with the Sopranos lately. I never watched it during the initial run, unlike most of the world. It's pretty well done all 'round but right now (about a third of the way into season 4) I'm having trouble finding reasons to continue. Maybe y'all can convince me.
One problem is by now all the characters are completely unlikeable. They could all die in a hail of bullets as far as I'm concerned. Except Carmella. She's alright and seems to be the stoic centre of the show, never really getting things her way.
The show must be fairly well written and performed, or else I would have given up before now. It's very long winded and meandering. Less and less happens and what does seems to have less and less impact on things. For a show all about the clash between mafia life and family life it really seems to have precious little of either, being mostly an Italian 'Cosby Show'-with-more-swearing sort of vibe more often than not.
Tony Soprano being apparently irresistable to women shatters all credibility too. Sorry, no, he's the fat schlubby kid who had to hit people to get respect. Initially I went along with mostly hookers and damaged immigrants getting attached to him. That makes sense. Then astoundingly rich and successful beauties (some of them running the mafia in Sicily no less) started throwing themselves at him after a moment of eye contact a couple of times a season.
Maybe I'm just jealous. In any case, I find it completely distracting and preposterous. What the hell is goin on there? Is it pandering to the American love of the fat schlub, or is Gandolfini throwing a few extra clauses in his contract?
Anyway, my interest wanes terribly. Maybe it was better as a week by week thing twelve times a year. Encourage me to press on if you feel inclined.
Money and power attract women, no matter the appearance of the man. I thought it was universal truth.
Season 4 is worth it purely for the climax with Tony and Carmella.
After that it's mostly forgettable and an inevitable downward spiral of the story (and the characters too, obviously), I must admit.
Pine Barrens was probably the peak of the show's writing and still maintained a level of mafiosa influence over the soap-like character dynamics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
