Bullets 'n' Babes

luckystars wrote:Spielberg apparently wanted to film Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on celluloid, presumably to keep with the look of the original films, but Lucas convinced him to use the 'Lucas Digital' format instead! Shame that coz the film ended up looking horrible!!

It was filmed on 35mm in Panavision as per Spielberg's wishes.

Thank You for Smoking (2006-USA) ***

Sharp satire, if a little saggy at times.

Storm Catcher (1999-USA) *½

DTV dud from Dolph.

degeneration wrote:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 0.5/5, maybe even 0/5

You really didn't like it, did you . Personally I felt it tried to put the entire book into a 2 hour movie and got way to bogged down in detail. I wouldn't say I was bored as such but wasn't exactly riveted either. The acting is uniformly good though, especially the ever reliable Gary Oldman.

degeneration wrote:This is the sort of slow moving, slightly arty and thinking man's drama, made for people who think they are better than everyone else

No offence intended but is it just me, does anyone else get bored with reading such comments? When it really just boils down to the simple fact you disliked it. The acting was good, it's well made. I didn't entirely work for me but I can see it's a well made film. Agreed, it was certainly slow.

saltysam wrote:i haven't seen it but i'm not surprised-the original television series was mind-numbingly boring as well.

I thought that was supposed to be excellent? The sort of TV everyone stayed in to watch, no?

IronMonkey wrote:It doesn't matter that it was shot digitally. What matters is that it wasn't shot in 3D - i.e. two aligned cameras. Anything post converted from 2D to 3D cannot create a true 3D image and in my opinion it does not look good.

Agreed but 3D looks shit regardless. It may as well be a film I like.

luckystars wrote:Shame that coz the film ended up looking horrible!!

The look of Indy 4 isn't what's wrong with it, it's everything else. What a disaster of a movie.

luckystars wrote:

grim_tales wrote:Wasn't Phantom the first film to be shot digitally? I do agree though the 3D was not good/non existent because it wasnt shot in 3D, the CGI looked poor as well most of the time.

AFAIK Attack of the Clones was the first film to be shot 'entirely' on digital.

Vidocq disagrees. "First feature film shot with the new Sony digital 1080p 24 fps cameras to reach the screen (a year before Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones). "

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164961/

Ahhh well who knows. Perhaps post production was longer!

luckystars wrote:Ahhh well who knows. Perhaps post production was longer!

Because Lucas kept shouting "Not enough CGI! Add more! Add more!"?

CGI is the best part of the films. It's certainly not the story, or the acting!!

bradavon wrote:

degeneration wrote:This is the sort of slow moving, slightly arty and thinking man's drama, made for people who think they are better than everyone else

No offence intended but is it just me, does anyone else get bored with reading such comments? When it really just boils down to the simple fact you disliked it. The acting was good, it's well made. I didn't entirely work for me but I can see it's a well made film. Agreed, it was certainly slow.

It wasn't jsut that I didn't like it. there are plenty of other films out there that I really didn't like but I wouldn't put in the same category as this.

It was mostly because it is basically a shit slow film, that has very undeservedly had a lot of praise given too it. the fact that it has a strong, renowned cast doesn't change it from being a shit film, but I feel that because of the cast, it is getting a higher opinion than it would have if it were cast with unknowns or Z listers. I would be reasonably sure that if there wasn't a single known name amongst the cast, the film would have been criticised for being slow and dull, without much character or plot development.

There was next to zero character development from any character throughout the whole film.

luckystars wrote:CGI is the best part of the films. It's certainly not the story, or the acting!!

Well Christopher Lee was fricking awesome in em...pity he wasn't in Phantom Menace.

degeneration wrote:I would be reasonably sure that if there wasn't a single known name amongst the cast, the film would have been criticised for being slow and dull, without much character or plot development.

I disagree but fair enough.

Unknown (2011) - 2.5/5

It was OK, nothing more, and was almost like a remake of the far superior 'Frantic'.

gasteropod wrote:Unknown (2011) - 2.5/5

It was OK, nothing more, and was almost like a remake of the far superior 'Frantic'.

It was a lot like it!

Actually this was quite good....as in suspenseful, until the twist was revealed. Then it got dull.

The Innkeepers (2011) - 3/5

I was hoping for more, by the end it kind of felt a bit pointless. The ending to The House of the Devil was a slight letdown as well (though better than this) so I think Ti West needs to work on this more in future films.

luckystars wrote:

gasteropod wrote:Unknown (2011) - 2.5/5

It was OK, nothing more, and was almost like a remake of the far superior 'Frantic'.

It was a lot like it!

Actually this was quite good....as in suspenseful, until the twist was revealed. Then it got dull.

I just rented Frantic from Lovefilm. The role Neeson played did seem similar to what Ford might have done in the 80's. Looking forward to it.
I kinda agree about the twist, it was a good, exciting movie and IS interesting but the twist was like a Bourne/Long Kiss Goodnight rip-off

Markgway wrote:

luckystars wrote:Spielberg apparently wanted to film Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on celluloid, presumably to keep with the look of the original films, but Lucas convinced him to use the 'Lucas Digital' format instead! Shame that coz the film ended up looking horrible!!

It was filmed on 35mm in Panavision as per Spielberg's wishes.

That's not what I saw Spielberg saying in interview. Well if it was shot on film, the post processing killed any look of it!!


Computer artists should be shown Where The Wild Things Are for a lesson on how to integrate CGI into a film without detracting from achieving an anthestic realism.

grim_tales wrote:I just rented Frantic from Lovefilm. The role Neeson played did seem similar to what Ford might have done in the 80's. Looking forward to it.

Nice, I think you'll really enjoy it. It deserves the Criterion treatment really, it's only available on US Blu-ray as a 2-pack thing with another film, I'm not having that tacky shite in my collection.

What's the other film that comes with it?

grim_tales wrote:What's the other film that comes with it?

Presumed Innocent

Frantic is better than Presumed Innocent and deserves a BD release of its own.

i've not seen either.wasn't too keen on Unknown,disappointing.

I say:
Frantic - 4.5/5
Unknown - 2.5/5

Unknown was fine, but could have been better.

Agreed. I felt Unknown was good but could have been even better, the story/mystery had so much potential. I think I gave it 3.5/5

Markgway wrote:Frantic is better than Presumed Innocent and deserves a BD release of its own.

True its better, but I'd like to see the original ending of Frantic.

A film I've owned a couple times but its too cheesy to watch over and over.

Snakes on a Plane (2006) - 1.5/5

Funny line, not funny film.