Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Medallion

This is topic The Medallion 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=000626

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-22-2003, 01:55 AM:

Exceptionally bad.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-22-2003, 04:31 AM:

Superbly bad.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2003, 04:47 AM:

Amazingly bad.

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 08-22-2003, 11:31 AM:

SUCKED BEYOND ALL BELIEF! I'M WONDERING WHAT TO DO ABOUT CUSTOMERS REQUESTING REFUNDS [puke]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-22-2003, 05:27 PM:

R. Andrew, you just hit a huge pet-peave of mine.

Dont give customers rufunds so easily - It's their respnsability to look up movies and reviews. If it were up to me i'd only refund people who had to leave durring the first half of the film, or if there is a technical issue with the presentation. Never on the basis of "That movie sucked". Yes it did. Next time research your movie before seeing it.

(Ducks to avoid the flames)

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-22-2003, 05:49 PM:

If the presentation was up to snuff and there were no other "issues" aside from the movie's inherent suckiness, then why would anyone deserve a refund? [Confused]

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 08-23-2003, 12:57 AM:

Mike Olpin: I would never actually give a refund because a movie sucked. I agree that they are only necessary when a technical difficulty occurs. [thumbsup]

Just not fun to explain that to customers. They think they have to be satisfied. It's hard to explain that we cannot control the quality of our product the way other businesses can. We don't create this [bs]

. Fortunately, nobody asked for there money back. Maybe because only 35 people came all day long. I already moved it to my smallest auditorium.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-24-2003, 06:41 PM:

Shockingly bad. I like Jackie Chan, and he does get in a few good stunts in this, but aside from those brief moments, this is unwatchable.

Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene, House #3, probably DTS. Attendance: Exactly 7 (in a 480-seat auditorium). Subwoofers were MIA today. The image was jittering laterally quite badly from the first ad through the feature.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-25-2003, 01:42 AM:

If I remember correctly, the film had an un-spectacular sound mix. I don't remember any LF stuff at all.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-27-2003, 01:47 PM:

Yeah, there really wasn't too much LFE on this film. It seemed as if this was a pretty low budget film, with sound and editing errors everywhere. I as well felt that this film was a stinker. I usually enjoy Jackie Chan movies but this one just had no substance, no story, and the stunts weren't really there like his other films. Was it me or was there tons of wire-fu?

AJG

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-28-2003, 01:50 AM:

Oh yes -- I now remember, while screening the print, making the comment that the sound mixer and editor probably saw what they had to work with and both got drunk first. I think the cheesy sound effects gave it away.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-24-2003, 10:32 PM:

Attendance: 2003/09/24 19:15, Regal Madison Square 12, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 11, Scope

I enjoyed this. The antics in these Jackie Chan movies always reminds me of Three Stooges antics, just a lot higher caliber with a lot more action. It's not the best movie I've seen, but it's not the worst. I wouldn't call it bad -- maybe medium.

This is not the first movie that I've noticed the CAP code in, but this is the first one I've seen where it really stood out and actually was somewhat distracting at times. It was definitely overdone in this movie.

The credits have some outtakes.

This is a recently converted auditorium from Cobb 1.85:1-only to having vertically adjustable masking. The scope screen size in this 28-foot auditorium is 24 by 10, but I'm amazed at how sharp and bright the image looked. The alignment was off. If the image were moved 1 foot to the right and 1 foot down, it would have looked good for the most part. The nasty aperture plate edges were visible on the right and bottom edges. Also, the bottom couple of feet of the image were darker than the rest. I mentioned these things to the manager guy there on duty on the way out.

"Shanghai Nights" was a much better (and funnier) Jackie Chan movie than "The Medallion" in my opinion. "The Medallion" did make me laugh out loud some, even though I was the only person in the theatre (making me laugh in that situation is difficult), but I remember Shanghai Knights being much better.

When seeing the little boy in the film, it's bad when all you can think of is "There is no spoon." And when seeing Jackie Chan's partner and not ever remembering his name because I can only think of him as "Tucker" from "There's Something About Mary", that's bad too. With a good movie, the actors should be remembered for their part in that movie, not from another.