Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2009 - Anything Exciting Coming Out?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » 2009 - Anything Exciting Coming Out? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: 2009 - Anything Exciting Coming Out?

Geena Phillips
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 198
From: Norcross, GA / USA
Registered: Apr 2006

posted 03-24-2009 09:10 PM

quote: Carl Martin
see: knowing.

Um... thanks anyway, but no. [puke]

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-25-2009 01:01 PM

quote: Sally Ann Burgess
Bruno for me is the must-see this year

I will see it, but he was my least favorite character from the HBO show. I would have rather they gone back and made another Ali G movie - this one in a similar format as Borat. Indahouse just didn't work.

My must-see is Whatever Works because Larry David is hilarious.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 03-25-2009 03:00 PM

After being totally disgusted by Borat, I won't even attempt to watch Bruno.

I made it about halfway through Borat. But once he came back to the table with his bag of shit, that was it for me. Although I didn't find the movie even slightly funny, I was willing to give it a chance up to that point. After that I felt it was simply a waste of my time to keep watching.

| IP: Logged

Robert Crabtree
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: Largo, FL
Registered: May 2008

posted 03-26-2009 02:14 PM

Later this year, Almodóvar's newest film, Los abrazos rotos, is supposed to come stateside. I like most of his stuff, and hope it'll roll out to some of the art houses nearby.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-26-2009 02:34 PM

quote: Mike Heenan
I saw a trailer for Public Enemies a week ago, and wow you can totally tell it was shot on video. It just didn't look right to me.

Not only that, but I find it very retarded for the video look to be showing up in a 1930's era gangster flick. It's not quite as laughable as SD video-based stock footage of American battleships firing their guns showing up in the John Woo WWII movie Windtalkers (the footage was blown up so scan lines were plainly visible). Still, it's pretty bad.

The video look may seem fine for a contemporary, current day feature like Collateral or Miami Vice, especially with all the video-based reality shows about police officers being shown on TV. The public is familiar with real life cops being presented with the video look. However, it just sucks for a story based on people who lived and died decades ago.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 03-26-2009 03:33 PM

I've always found that argument to be kind of weird considering how technologically advanced even film is compared to what was available during periods in which many movies are set. Should movies set a hundred years ago be in black and white too?

Sure, it looks a little weird right now, but that's because it hasn't really been done before. After a while, it won't be any stranger than any other format.

| IP: Logged

Tyler Potts
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 159
From: Anderson, SC, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 03-27-2009 07:13 PM

Public Enemies... so a 30s version of Heat? Sign. Me. Up.

500 Days of Summer. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been Sundance gold for 3 years, Fox picked this up for a (limited?) summer release, can't wait!

The Brothers Bloom. Director of Brick, a shame Summit keeps pushing this back.

Where the Wild Things Are. Watching the trailer on Monsters vs. Aliens almost made me cry. I can't wait.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-27-2009 11:50 PM

quote: Mike Schindler
I've always found that argument to be kind of weird considering how technologically advanced even film is compared to what was available during periods in which many movies are set. Should movies set a hundred years ago be in black and white too?

Some movie productions have chosen that route out of artistic reasons.

At least film existed in the 1930s. Even color film technology was developed during the 1930s. The digital video look doesn't have any relevance for that time. A show taking place during the 1930s doesn't need to look like a present day video-documentary of an episode of Cops or the 6 o'clock news. I think Michael Mann has either turned into a total fanboy of the "digital" buzzword or he just likes the convenience of shooting on video over the higher quality you get from shooting on film.

Maybe that's also what's holding up the Blu-ray release of Heat: good looking anamorphic 35mm film quality. Can't have something like a catalog title you directed 14 years ago upstaging the look of newer "digital" based movies created a couple or so years ago. Mann probably shouldn't worry. With the current management at Warner Bros. Home Video they'll probably do one of their DNR-it-to-death smoothie video transfers that kills all the fine detail out of the negative. Then the "digital" stuff can be claimed to have superior image quality.

| IP: Logged

Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 03-28-2009 06:05 AM

I hate the argument that "It doesn't look like the 1930's so the movies going to suck." As long as the story's good, the action is good, and the acting is solid then who cares what it was shot on. Your average movie goer who is going to make this movie money don't give two shits what it was filmed on.

If you really want to complain about something, why don't you complain about the horrible CGI Depp that hops over the counter with the Tommy Gun towards the start of the trailer. That's something to bitch about, not the format the film was shot in.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-28-2009 01:40 PM

I mainly complaining about the video look of that movie because it's making the image quality look like shit. It's distracting, just like the bad CGI you noticed.

If the "filmmakers" did a proper job with the videography people like me wouldn't be noticing the electronic look of it quite so easily.

| IP: Logged

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 03-28-2009 02:02 PM

Yeah I agree with Bobby. My beef with the "look" of it is just that the image doesn't look all that great. I dont think just because the movie takes place in the 30s it needs to be shot in black and white and full frame, but when I saw the trailer, it just looked like a higher quality episode of Cops.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.