Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bagger Vance

This is topic Bagger Vance in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000081

Posted by Rick Fowler (Member # 605) on 11-06-2000, 05:40 AM:

Surprised I'm the first to post about this film. I would have to give it thumbs up. Redford's direction and vision was good. Smith and Damon did a very good job. Theron however was disappointing her southern accent was horrible. Was pleasantly surprised that Jack Lemon was the narrator. It does the book justice which is hard to say about alot of movies today. Well that's my opinion let's here what everyone else thought.

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-08-2000, 07:47 AM:

I saw "Legend of Bagger Vance" at ShowEast last month, and really enjoyed it. The theme of a "man who's lost his game" and needs to find it again is similar to that of Redford's "The Natural". Cinematography was beautiful, treating the natural beauty of the golf course like the scenery in "A River Runs Through It". Kind of wish Redford had decided to make it in scope, rather than 1.85:1 flat, though.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 11-09-2000, 09:11 AM:

I whole heartedly concur. I thought it was a wonderul movie as well.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2000, 02:16 PM:

Being a fan of Mr. Redford, I enjoyed the movie, but felt the first 30 minutes was rushed and had a "thrown together" feeling to it. Perhaps the movie was 4 hours and Redford had to cut 90 minutes into 30? Who knows.

The chemistry between Will Smith and Matt Damon has that trademark Redford style that he does so well and the movie as a whole is very good, "if" you like these sort of movies, which many of the younger crowd does not seem to care much for. I did wish Mr. Redford had been in the film himself in one capacity or another.

I have only 2 beefs with this flick. First, it was recorded in EX. What? The lack of surrounds stood out to me as I was watching it. I can only remember hearing one good EX effect in the entire film. I hope Mr. Redford isn't getting Woody Allen syndrome with respect to sound mixing.

Second, I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for the movie to suddenly burst into full 2:39 scope...but it never did! (Remember the Horse Whisperer?) Movies such as Bagger Vance NEED to be in scope and I still feel strongly that any film shot flat should not be capable of getting an Academy Award for cinematography. Why DPs insist on shooting flat is beyond me. It's knowingly losing resolution on the release prints, losing light output over scope in theaters and making sure that any registration errors during printing will be exaggerated.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2000, 08:23 AM:

One factor that leads many distributors to prefer "flat" is the eventual video release. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio requires much less cropping or pan-and-scan for 1.33:1 NTSC or PAL video, and is almost a perfect fit for future 16:9 (1.78:1) HD video. When "letterboxed" video transfers are made (more common with DVD than VHS tape), the letterboxing is less constricting with 1.85:1 than 2.39:1. Often today, more money is made on the video release, than from the original theatrical release, so "the horse is driving the cart", and the "inmates have taken over the asylum".

Regardless, many people still want to "fill the screen" of their TV sets, despite the availability of "letterboxing" on DVD. This unfortunately favors 1.85:1.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2000, 04:48 PM:

Yeah, I know, but it's VIDEO! Who cares?

Shoot Super35 if you're worried about video transfer. Don't sacrifice the presentation of the theatrical engagement.

I knew those HDTV guys screwed up when I heard they settled on the "widescreen" (ha) 16:9 format.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 11-11-2000, 11:03 PM:

I thought the first fifteen minutes was boring. Then it picked up when Matt and the kid were first introduced and then it really picked up when Will Smith was on the scene.

Not much use out of the surrounds except when it was thundering. And maybe it was just the print I saw, but I didn't think the cinematography was all that great. Redford's The Horse Whisperer was better in that department IMHO.

I actually thought this movie was about the first black caddy or something. But what was cool was that their wasn't any hint of racial strife (unlike Remember the Titans or Men of Honor, or for that matter any Denzel Washington flick), and I find that very refreshing.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 11-13-2000, 08:11 AM:

The cinematographer is Michael Ballhaus, whose work I loved so much in Martin Scorsese's film 'After hours'. Every shot in that movie is just superb! He worked with Scorsese on many films during the 80's.

I haven't seen 'Legend of Bagger Vance' yet (it hasn't been released here) but will probably see it. Hope this isn't too 'off topic'.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-13-2000, 12:52 PM:

quote:
I didn't think the cinematography was all that great. Redford's The Horse Whisperer was better in that department IMHO.

Dwayne,

That's 'cause Horse Whisperer was shot in Montana!

Posted by Rick Fowler (Member # 605) on 11-14-2000, 01:34 AM:

Well the camera work in Horse whisperer may have been better and nicer being shot in Scope but was IMHO Redford's worst film just a deplorable story. Mom having an affair with her daughter's trainer after she had a horrible accident. that story bugs me