Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Notebook

This is topic The Notebook 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=000785

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 06-10-2004, 02:50 AM:

The movie itself was pretty good. 75% of the movie is covered in the first 50 pages of the book. I guess it would be a good date movie.

However, the print quality was terrible. Horrible focus issues, the focus is different at every camera angle change. Pretty bad color changing between reels also. It is a deluze print, I couldnt find any edge markings though.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-10-2004, 09:25 AM:

quote: Chris Hipp
Horrible focus issues, the focus is different at every camera angle change.

Don't blame the lab for that.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 06-24-2004, 07:29 PM:

Chris, I noticed the bad focus too. I went upstairs to check that it wasn't the projector causing it. It seemed to change from scene to scene.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-26-2004, 01:42 AM:

I took a date to see "The Notebook" at the Carmike 8 in Lawton this evening (screen #3, DTS, 9:50pm show). She was crying her eyes out at the end, so, yeah it does qualify as a bona-fide chick flick.

Well, I thought the movie was pretty good. But some of it was a bit predictable and a little implausible. I felt myself not really buying into all of it, but I appreciated the effort in that this kind of film can work for those who have a lot of faith in idealized love story fantasies. It is the greatest thing in the world to love someone with all your heart and have them return the same to you. Sadly, in our reality too few of us ever get to experience love on that level. We go through some terribly painful experiences and stories like this can really bristle against a jaded viewer the wrong way. I did my best to give this film a chance, look at it objectively and try to be entertained by it. A lot of it worked, but some of it didn't.

Regarding print problems, I noticed a couple odd out-of-focus shots, along with other oddities like a botched CGI render of a flying goose in the film's beginning (one goose in the flying gaggle seemed to flicker and disappear as they pulled away above a man rowing a canoe). However, there were plenty of other shots in the film that looked very nice. At least they shot most of this movie in real anamorphic 'scope rather than Super35 (I saw a few spherical shots here and there, obviously for some zoom lens shots).

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-26-2004, 11:26 PM:

This movie was phenomenal.

Apparently this was true anamorphic scope? The views were amazing. This film really is heartfelt and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy when it is over.

I think Rachel McAdams was absolutely beautiful in this. She really looked great.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!

When the old Allie started playing that tune on the piano, I knew immediately that it was both the old Noah and Allie in the home. I wish they would have waited a little longer to reveal that although I had a hunch from the beginning.

I really liked this film and I sat next to an old lady in it who asked if she could crty on my shoulder. It was sweet.

Definately has rewatchable qualities.

4.5/5

On a side note....I saw this at the AMC Westshore 14 in Tampa. As soon as the credits started, the cleaning crew was in there with about 10 other customers banging their dustpans around. The music in the credits is great and I had to tell the supervisor in there to have them wait till the end of the credits. They finally stopped and I was able to enjoy the end of the credits.

[ 06-27-2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Richard Greco ]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 06-28-2004, 06:09 AM:

quote: Richard Greco
As soon as the credits started, the cleaning crew was in there with about 10 other customers banging their dustpans around. The music in the credits is great and I had to tell the supervisor in there to have them wait till the end of the credits. They finally stopped and I was able to enjoy the end of the credits.

Isnt this what you got into an argument about before? Werent you in a hurry to get in there and clean, because you didnt have enough time in between shows, but now you complain about it. I'm confused.

Edit: Oh yeah, the movie was pretty good.

Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 06-29-2004, 01:22 PM:

quote: Jeremy Fuentes
Isnt this what you got into an argument about before? Werent you in a hurry to get in there and clean, because you didnt have enough time in between shows, but now you complain about it. I'm confused.

I recall this too. [Confused]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2004, 01:32 PM:

Movie REVIEWS people.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-01-2004, 09:04 PM:

"Don't blame the lab for that."

While the case above was probably not the lab it is quite possible to blame the lab if the print is soft through out. I've seen many a print in which the dailies looked really magnificent, the DP was happy as could be and then the release print was pure garbage. Thanks goodness this is not too common an occurance.

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-06-2004, 03:32 PM:

Most common cause of reduced sharpness in release prints is printing short pitch original to short pitch raw stock on a continous contact printer, so there is slippage in the printer. Printing short pitch to short pitch can also introduce unsteadiness.

Continous contact printers were designed to print a short pitch original onto a long pitch raw stock.

The correct (and slower) way is to print short pitch original to a long pitch master positive, then use a pin-registered STEP printer to make a short pitch printing negative. Release prints are short pitch duplicate negative to long pitch print stock.

2K or less digital intermediate also will not be as sharp as a direct print.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-06-2004, 07:41 PM:

Are people incapable of paying attention anymore? This is the MOVIE REVIEWS forum and if you look 3 posts up you will notice a post I made, yet the technical babble continues.

Don't make me ban someone just to set an example. Open up a new thread in FHF for technical discussions for this and ALL future movie review threads.

Posted by Nicole Halper (Member # 2299) on 07-15-2004, 12:15 PM:

I saw this several weeks ago- so here is my well overdue review:

First off I need to point out that yes, I am a chick- and this movie is clearly a chick flick. But then again- I prefer a good comedy/action/ or horror film any day to one of those. My sister made me take her to see it, so I did. The movie as a whole was very well done, I must say. And major props to the lead girl (Rachel McAdams)- for not being the same blond she played in Mean Girls. The story line was very predictable. It's a lot like any movie with a girl torn between two guys. It even made me think about Sweet Home Alabama from 2002...I think. The rich clean cut guy VS the poor sweet one. Hmmm...anyone have a clue how that one turns out? Hahaha- Well for Alison- she doesn't...but she does...but then she doesn't again. It is a very sweet and touching love story, however- but I'm not sure I would sit through another 2hrs of it.

Posted by Taylor Hogue (Member # 2558) on 07-18-2004, 07:36 PM:

For what this movie was, it was very good. It didn't promise anything more than a love story. The tagline was, "Behind every great love there is a great story." It is completely set up to be a chick flick, and yet it turned out to be of a much higher quality. Ryan Gosling's acting was very impressive. He became Noah- he was not just walking through it, it was believable. I have so many guy friends that enjoyed this movie, despite it's initial appeal as strictly a "date film." Anyway, for people who said the plot was shallow, it is a movie based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks . . . not the most talented writer.

Over all I give it four and a half stars out of five.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 07-18-2004, 09:12 PM:

I took my daughter to see this movie. As I enter the theater, I notice I'm like the only guy there. Maybe two others. The movie wasn't bad, but for me it wasn't too deep, either. I don't know if I didn't like Ryan Gosling or the character he played. And that house wasn't worth saving, but where did all that money come from? His father? Yeah, right. I thought for sure she would... but I wouldn't want to give it away.

Implausible to the end, but the tissues were at hand. Rachel McAdams was good and I look forward to seeing her in another role. I'd give it **1/2 out of **** stars.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-21-2004, 12:43 AM:

This movie could do without the old people. Not saying old people are bad in general. But the movie would have been better and shorter if they weren't in it. Ryan Gosling is awesome and extremely hot... ohh yeah... he played the role very well. [Smile]

3.5/5