Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Holes

This is topic Holes 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=000551

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-18-2003, 09:58 PM:

04/18/2003, Regal Valley River Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, 4:30PM, #4,

. Attendance about 40. Generally very good presentation but the reel-change splices looked bad. Very bright, sharp, detailed image -- looked great on the screen ('cept for those splices).

I haven't read the book, didn't really know what to expect. Well much to my surprise, I liked this a lot. It may be a PG-rated Disney film, but it's intellectually challenging and should appeal to both kids and adults who are capable of paying attention for 2 hours. Jon Voight is perfect as "Mr. Sir", same for Sigourney Weaver as The Warden. The kids are good without being obnoxious. The story and the characters have some dark corners that really make this memorable. Ummm, 4 stars out of 5.
[thumbsup]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-18-2003, 10:49 PM:

As always, great review David!

I saw the trailer lots of times during the past few weeks and I was not very impressed with it that made me want to see the movie. With your favorable review, I might make an effort to see it. Thanks

-Claude

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-18-2003, 11:00 PM:

I agree with all of David's points. This is a pretty good film, despite the lousy trailer. I question whether the kids will be able to completely follow the story, but nevertheless it is enjoyable. My only beef with it was that it did feel long during some of the flashbacks around mid-way through the movie. Those could have been shortened a bit and still gotten the point across, but overall this is one of the better films out right now. A good sound mix too. I give it 3 1/2 stars out of 5.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-18-2003, 11:04 PM:

Although I hope I'm wrong, I suspect this film is a little too demanding on the audience to be a big hit with the masses. It's not really a comedy, although it has some funny scenes. It's not really a crime drama, though it deals with some very shady adult characters. And it's not really just a kids' movie either, what with some of the adults meeting an untimely demise. The trailer definitely does not do the film justice, but this is probably a hard film to market. Maybe good word-of-mouth will help it.

Brad's right -- younger kids may have trouble following this. The flashbacks are a little confusing at first. But it all falls into place at the end. Even if young kids are confused by the flashbacks, they can still relate to the "present-day" stuff at the camp.

The cinematography (flat) is excellent and you really believe Camp Greenlake is out in the middle of a desert.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-19-2003, 04:50 PM:

This movie remains remarkably faithful to the book. If your looking for a light read the childrens book "Holes" by Luis Sacher (of Wayside School fame) is reqlly quiet excellent.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-24-2003, 03:47 PM:

Attendance: 2003/04/23 19:00, Regal River Oaks Cinema 8, Decatur, AL, Auditorium 6, DTS, Flat

I thought this was a good movie. It held my attention and interest the entire time (a good "measuring stick" for movie quality).

Several things:

1. If kids had to be out in the hot sun in a desert every day for many months, they'd have much much darker tans than those kids had.

2. The lizards that if they bit you, you'd die: why is it that CaveMan and Zero wer so scared of them when they were in the hole with them, and suddenly, they suddenly seem to lose their fear of the lizards and just start moving and come out of the hole without the lizards attacking?

3. How could "Camp Greenlake" operate without regular inspections? The holes would be very noticeable to anyone driving in. Would someone on parole be allowed to work at such a place to start with? Such a camp probably could not get away with treating kids the way they were treated in the movie.

4. Sentencing a teenage kid to 18 months for stealing a pair of shoes?

This was an enjoyable movie and I did enjoy the way the plot elements came together, but there were too many things that jump out at me as being wrong in this movie. Of course, if this movie is a straight implementation of a story from a book, then if the movie just follows the book, then it's OK. [Smile]

The presentation was flawless, as usual for this theatre.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-24-2003, 04:25 PM:

Evans, re: Point #1: I sometimes wonder why the participants in Survivor aren't sunburned beyond all recognition. [Wink]

Point #2: Didn't the 2 kids suddenly realize they were temporarily "immune" to the lizards because of all the sweet onions they had eaten? The story made a point of mentioning that the kids reeked of onions just prior to that scene with the lizards.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-24-2003, 04:35 PM:

Guess I missed that about the onions and the lizard immunity.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-24-2003, 04:44 PM:

I guess that's one of the reasons I liked the movie - it made me feel SO SMART that I figured that out. [Wink]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-24-2003, 09:42 PM:

This is one terrific movie. It's great to see a "kids" film that is entertaining for grownups. I liked it a LOT. It passed all of my "tests"..interesting story, characters that you care about, etc.

The ONION is a very important symbol in this story. The entire movie is like an onion, as more and more of the story is revealed as the layers strip away.

HOLES, the novel, was the winner of the 1999 Newbery Medal, which is the "BEST PICTURE" award for children's literature. There is no higher award a children's book can receive. The author adapted his own work for the screen. (Pretty good work for a first screenplay!)

Newbery Medal books are typically written for students in grades 5-8, which typically includes chidren from 10-14. The story is not intended for young children.

Looks like this film will make some good money, as it was very inexpensive to make. We need more films like this one.

Just a couple of notes: Tim Blake Nelson REALLY speaks his words clearly, showing his stage training. Every word is very precise (and I loved the way the hat pulled down his ears.)

Also, Eartha Kitt has a very strange voice, but I don't think it is THAT strange. Sounded dubbed to me.

Anyway, this is a very very good film, and I'm really glad I saw it.

[ 04-25-2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-25-2003, 10:56 PM:

All right. Settle down. Enough fun and games.

This movie SUCKS! Strangely enough, it also BLOWS! [puke]

The magical folks over at Disney have discovered how to make every 20-min reel seem to last an hour.

I will admit I left early but I feel that I gave the movie a fair shot. We were well into our third hour and nothing substantial was happening and, frankly, my open mind was closing down and I was "checking-out" emotionally. I haven't been this turned off of something since I got food poisoning from eating seafood.

"Holes" is aptly titled. Whenever I think of this movie I shall be reminded of its emptiness, shallowness. The characters are vapid and devoid of any semblance of humanity. I am tempted to describe the characters as caricatures but this would be inaccurate and too great a compliment to bestow upon this piece of trash. Caricatures tend to be two-dimensional and drawn in broad strokes. The people in "Holes" are one-dimensional. Even the big stars in this movie lack presence. I want to point out something that I found odd. With all of their words and their stupid little backstories, none of the main characters ever seemed to be saying anything and, yet, little Zero spoke volumes with practically no written dialogue.

Some kind of Technical Achievement award should be forthcoming for the inclusion of a mummified Eartha Kitt.

All I can say is "thank God that polyester can be recycled and the base of these prints have a chance to return as something better."

Do your audience a favor and leave your Xenon lamps in the OFF position.

My heart goes out to parents who have to take their kids to the movies to see this kind of crap. I went with a friend and admission cost $17.00. Coincidentally, a small portion of concession cost an additional $17.00. What must it cost to take a wife and three children to see a movie on a Friday night? I'm furious and I only spent $34.00; a small family could easily have spent $70.00!

So when you discuss in that other thread "why attendance is down" consider that it might be a case of diminishing returns to the consumer.

My condolences to the people who worked on this movie. The fact that it's doing a lot of business means nothing to them; high grosses will add nothing to their paycheck. The fact is that they have wasted time, money and energy making "Holes." More to the point, I was tricked into wasting time, money and energy watching "Holes."

Old man Walt must be rolling in his liquid Nitrogen cryogenic chamber!

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-26-2003, 12:13 AM:

Manny - Do you think there's any correlation between shaving off the beard and your sudden negative attitude toward fine family-oriented films? Seems like a stretch, but I don't believe in coincidences. [Wink]

Then again, I was probably the only member of f-t who LOATHED "Sweet Home Alabama" and walked out on it because it was making me angry. [Mad]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-26-2003, 10:32 AM:

Dear Diary: How can anyone call this movie a "fine family film" ?

David: You may have a point there. Ever since I shaved off the beard -- and now the hair -- I have become a lot more negative in general. That smile on my face is the result of careful Photoshopping. The good news is that my hair grows very quickly.

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 05-01-2003, 08:51 PM:

Saw this today, and I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. The beginning was a bit slow, but it got going around the middle and was pretty entertaining. I also have to question how somebody can get sentenced to 18 months for stealing a pair of shoes, and a juvenile at that. Granted the shoes were for a charity to benefit the homeless, but that shouldn't make any difference.

6.3/10

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-01-2003, 09:03 PM:

a) It's a fil-making technique called "willing suspension of dissbeleif"

b) thoose shoes bellonged to the famouse baseball player, and the childrens shelter was planning to make a lot of money with them at a benifit auction.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-09-2003, 10:18 PM:

Good film...definitely recommended. Although I don't normally bother to watch anything that's marketed as a "family film," I'm glad I saw this. It's fun for the kids and adults, and (unlike way too many "kids' movies") it doesn't underestimate the intelligence of its audience. This is a refreshing break from a long line of crappy "family" films released over the last year or so (cough...Country Bears...Kangaroo Jack...cough).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-10-2003, 02:40 AM:

You know I was looking at a part of this film tonight and I think I would enjoy it even more on a second viewing. I guess I was involved in the story a bit, but tonight I noticed just how good of a job the D.P. did on this film. The image really jumps out at you with fantastic contrast and sharpness, especially when you are looking at it on a screen that is way over SMPTE luminance specs. [Cool]

Rarely do I watch a movie twice that didn't blow me away the first time, but I think I'm going to give this one a second viewing.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-12-2003, 02:37 PM:

quote:
The image really jumps out at you with fantastic contrast and sharpness, especially when you are looking at it on a screen that is way over SMPTE luminance specs.

I agree that "Brighter is Better", but going above the range of 12 to 22 footlamberts specified in SMPTE 196M may risk flicker (unless a three-blade shutter is used), and may show too MUCH detail in the shadow areas:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring98.shtml

I've projected normal prints made from well-exposed negatives at 60 footlamberts (using a three-blade shutter), and the results are amazing! [Cool]