Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mr. and Mrs. Smith

This is topic Mr. and Mrs. Smith 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=000941

Posted by Olivia Coleman (Member # 3193) on 06-10-2005, 06:34 AM:

Funny, sexy, picks up the pace good, overall a good time! I wasn't even waiting for the next reel to end just so it would be that much closer to #7! Kept my interest all the way through, even with having been up for 14 or so hours and working a matinee booth shift!

Overall 4 out of 5 stars=Not a spectacular movie but it will fill the seats for at least the first two weeks! [thumbsup]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-10-2005, 07:36 AM:

it was decent but it took a while to pick up the pace. I thought the first two and half reels were kinda slow...but they served the purpose and had some fun moments. Great banter back and forth between the two after everything starts coming out.

Best line of the film..."I knew your dad was on Fantasy Island!"

overal [thumbsup]

out of

The Greco factor is WAY HIGH in this one.

Posted by Matt Hollis (Member # 2954) on 06-10-2005, 08:31 AM:

I screened this one last night and was not too crazy about it. To me, not only was the Greco factor high but so was the cheeze factor. The ending is also one of the worst I have seen in some time.

2 / 4 Stars

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-10-2005, 01:15 PM:

Many a bad movie has been saved by a high Greco factor. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2005, 05:16 PM:

Not much time for a lengthy review, but not much needs to be said.

This one starts off a bit slow, but have patience. Once you get about an hour into it the show really picks up and becomes quite entertaining and fun.

The sound is also fantastic.

4 out of 5 stars

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-10-2005, 07:59 PM:

I enjoyed it very much. The only thing that bugged me was how some shots looked to have been sped up in post (when Mr. Smith pulls the driver out of the limo... etc... I noticed it about a half-dozen times)... Aside from that, I liked it. Certainly one of the more "fun" films I've seen in the past few months.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-11-2005, 12:39 PM:

It's funny, it's got some action, and it's clever. I liked it for the most part.
But when it comes down to it, it doesn't need to be 2 hours long, this movie was slow to come together and very sketchy on the details.
Once again, as with a lot of movies (notice Doug Liman movies tend to do this especially?) the overuse of the steadicam and tight shots on the action pissed me off.
Nothing like seeing a blur instead of good choreographed action!
Otherwise, it definitely had it's moments.
*Possible spoiler ahead*
but if you're ever given the option, don't watch the final trailer first, it gives away the ending.
*end spoiler*
Anyhow, 3/5.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-11-2005, 01:42 PM:

This was a fun movie. Watched it with a pretty full house at 8:30 on the opening friday night. A nice blend of comedy and action.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-11-2005, 03:32 PM:

CINEMA: Century 20 Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 11
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Shaky...oh never mind.
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

Great idea on paper, but could have had better execution. Too long and sort of anticlimactic in the end (referring to the action scenes...The final scene was perfect).

I guess it wasn't as clever as I had hoped for. It certainly had its moments, and I agree...it did have a great sound mix.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-12-2005, 01:52 PM:

Two Points:

1. Where's the logic? [Confused]

2. You don't need logic to watch Angelina Joli! [thumbsup]

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-12-2005, 03:07 PM:

I'll be seeing this one tonight. From what I've seen on the field, It is good for me.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-13-2005, 02:11 AM:

One of the more entertaining films I've seen this year. Great chemistry between the leads, good writing, and great action. Oh, and two major positives:

1. Angelina Jolie
2. Good sound mix!

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2005, 04:14 AM:

Angelina Jolie is a definite "butterface".

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-13-2005, 04:58 AM:

Is that good or bad?

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-13-2005, 05:34 AM:

Oh, yes, the "butterface". It's been a while since I've heard that one. However, I frankly don't care for Angelina Jolie in ANY capacity whatsoever. And I've only ever liked Brad Pitt in roles like those in 12 Monkeys or Fight Club, and this one doesn't seem to be anything other than pure action-flick. I'll pass on this one. The trailer bored me.

Probably too many explosions, anyway ... well-mixed or not. [Razz]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-13-2005, 02:25 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
Is that good or bad?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butterface

quote:
Butterface
Chick with a hell of a nice body, but the face is ugly.
She looked real good... but her face (butterface)

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-13-2005, 06:03 PM:

Could you explain the butterface thing to us foreigners? [Confused]

In return, I offer a German insult: A (female) friend of mine saw me watching TOMB RAIDER on DVD and sneeringly called Angelina Jolie a blusen-schönheit which translates to "blouse beauty" - a lady built so spectacular that you never look high enough to see her face.

I still think it was nothing but jealousy... [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 06-13-2005, 08:08 PM:

Was this movie filmed on HD video? Reason I ask is the whole film had a digital transfer look to it. You could see the aliasing artifacts on the cars and plants, and the facial detail would change when the subject moved his or her face.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2005, 08:34 PM:

It is impossible to film a movie on video.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-13-2005, 09:42 PM:

I could have sworn I saw film cameras on the set -shown on one of those HBO First Look thingies. I was channel surfing and saw them filming Angelina Jolie doing some wire rig descent stunt down the side of a hotel.

Even if film cameras were used in production, a digital intermediate could have been used in post production. Since just about any DI is rendered at 2K resolution (instead of something more appropriate for 35mm like 4K) there is a risk of pixels showing up on screen.

Haven't seen the movie yet though. Probably will sometime this week. I'm not sure if I'll notice any pixels though. I seem to be on more of a cringe alert when it comes to that damned crap CAP code.

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 06-14-2005, 06:41 AM:

Joe, go back under your rock.

Bobby,

Take a close look at the movie and see what you think. Is it a common practice to go from the DI to a release print. You know while I was watching "Project Greenlight" I didn't know the movie they were filming was actually shot on video,using the Sony HDW F900. With all the gear and matte boxes attached, it was hard to tell the difference. Oh btw the "crap codes" on the movie I saw were set dead center during an intense action sequence.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2005, 08:18 AM:

quote: Christian Appelt
Could you explain the butterface thing to us foreigners?

I'll try again:

Butterface = But her face (isn't perfect).

quote: Steve Anderson
Take a close look at the movie and see what you think. Is it a common practice to go from the DI to a release print.

AFAIK, it was shot on film by cinematographer Bojan Bazelli, and used Digital Intermediate. The credits seem to indicate a film crew, rather than video:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/fullcredits

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-14-2005, 01:04 PM:

I'm second guessing what I saw on the HBO First Look featurette, but do remember seeing cameras with film magazines.

quote: Steve Anderson
Is it a common practice to go from the DI to a release print.

I don't think you go direct from a 35mm strip output on a laser film recorder direct to release print. John would certainly know a lot more about this than me. The digitally printed film strip is a pretty expensive item. Not something you want to use to dupe 6000 release prints just for North America alone. More than likely the digitally printed strip is duped to a set of interpositives and/or internegatives for multiple uses, such as archiving and making release prints.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2005, 01:23 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't think you go direct from a 35mm strip output on a laser film recorder direct to release print. John would certainly know a lot more about this than me. The digitally printed film strip is a pretty expensive item. Not something you want to use to dupe 6000 release prints just for North America alone. More than likely the digitally printed strip is duped to a set of interpositives and/or internegatives for multiple uses, such as archiving and making release prints.

The digital intermediate is output to film, either as a master positive (from which multiple duplicate negatives can be made), or directly as duplicate negatives. A typical laser recorder used for this process takes between 13 and 31 HOURS PER REEL (depending on the resolution) to output the D.I. to film, from which the release prints are made:

http://www.cinesite.com/?1631&0&1117

quote:
Cinesite outputs to 5242 intermediate stock, which is virtually grainless (ASA 0.1) and has the ability to record the grain pattern from faster stocks so that the digital transformation is unnoticeable in the final edit. The lasers that the Cinesite systems use are more intense than CRTs and are able to record out the full dynamic range of any other scanne doriginal negative stock. At Ciensite the lasers are calibrated to give a maximum dynamic range of 2.046 density units to match the capability of the 5242 stock. The pixel size is 6 microns (millionths of a meter) and with a recording speed of 1.7 seconds per frame for 1.85 ratio 2k Cinesite's systems are very diffcult to beat in terms of speed and image quality.

http://www.arri.com/entry/digital.htm

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-14-2005, 01:58 PM:

I thought that our print looked fantastic. I haven't seen the whole thing yet, though, but the parts I have seen looked great.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-14-2005, 03:16 PM:

Heya Steve, check out the spelling of the word "filming". Did you notice it wasn't spelled "videoing"?

Seriously, I agree with Joe here. Stop calling it filming when you are videoing. It shows disrespect for the film format and true filmmakers, because let's face it, video is easier and doesn't require as much skill as shooting on film. (Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-14-2005, 03:59 PM:

I am someone who is incapable of reading what Brad wrote above.

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

[ 06-15-2005, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-14-2005, 05:42 PM:

Me too.

I need to learn to be able to read what part of "this matter" means before editing a post. I should also pay attention to rule #2.

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

[ 06-15-2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-14-2005, 08:27 PM:

Me three!

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

As far as how the image looked on screen, I thought it looked great after all the crappy looking policy & sound trailers finished, when it opened on Mr. & Mrs. Smith sitting on the couches the quality of the image struck me. I did notice shading around Pitt's head during one of the chase scenes, dunno if that's because it was shot in front of a green/blue screen or from the DI? It's possible that it's due to being shot on video, but I thought it was shot on film (but can't now find anything to back that "thought" ... I'm writing from a highly firewalled computer)

[ 06-15-2005, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-14-2005, 08:38 PM:

Wow look at me. I replied TWICE. Someone slap me.

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

[ 06-15-2005, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-14-2005, 10:25 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
A typical laser recorder used for this process takes between 13 and 31 HOURS PER REEL

Yep. I figured the process still had to be pretty slow. That film recording equipment is pretty expensive. Cost amortized out equals finished film reels costing a healthy bit of money. Not something you want to risk damaging with high speed film printing processes.

Now to my review of the show...

I just got back home from watching the 7:30pm show of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith." The movie had some pretty entertaining action and some funny moments regarding the sometimes ridiculous nature of marriage and domestic life.

While some of the spy stuff was slick, it was very "Hollywood" and not more reality based. Real life spies are people you would not notice in a crowd. A pencil neck geek or chubby book worm girl may serve as better candidates to be CIA operatives. I thought about that when seeing Mrs. Smith's collegues -a bunch of model pretty girls seemingly more at home in an MTV music video than in a covert activity.

Vince Vaughn was pretty funny being Vince Vaughn. His act works decently in a far fetched popcorn chewing movie.

Really good sound mix on this one. Hell of a lot of surround stuff when a house explodes. Debris kept hitting in the surrounds for a moment after. I wasn't sure whether it was the soundtrack or some teens ripping arm rests off the chairs.

Didn't see any pixels from the DI process. But I did see a LOT of crap code.

Overall review, three stars. I felt pretty cheated by the ending. It really wasn't an ending as far as I was concerned. I won't say why. Still, that's not enough to give it a thumbs down.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-14-2005, 10:28 PM:

Cap code ruins movies. People should just stay home.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-15-2005, 12:56 PM:

I thought that the show was AWESOME. IT was perfectly funny, plenty of action and it DOES get a high Greco rating. Especially for the dominatrix scene. Definately a DVD buy.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-15-2005, 06:02 PM:

John Pytlak wrote

quote: John Pytlak
I'll try again:

Butterface = But her face (isn't perfect).

Got it.

Thank you, John! [thumbsup]

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-22-2005, 10:02 PM:

I had somebody ask me what brand of sunglasses Mr. Smith wears in the film.

Anybody know?

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-23-2005, 12:34 AM:

I wish I read the slate.com review of this movie. Edelstein is usually on target and he was on target for this movie. This script was a joke. The guy Kinsberg wrote this screenplay as his freaking masters thesis. Based on this, miraculously, hollywood picked it up, and not only that, gave this guy the chance to write the X3 screenplay. What else has this guy given us? XXX2. ughhh. This is a guy who makes Akiva Goldsman seem worthy of the Nobel Prize for literature. Speaking of Akiva, he produced this movie which should have given me ample warning. He probably didn't let Liman supervise the editing leading to uncharacteristic bloat for a Liman movie. People are whining about Ratner taking over X3. Hell, it doesn't matter who directs if the screenplay is not going to deliver.

The good things? CInematography, and the chemistry between Jolie and Pitt that actually lived up to the hype which made the slow pace semi tolerable. Jolie was more smoldering than sulking. Good stunts. I liked some of the action in the second half. That's it folks.
The movie was a 90 minute movie stretched into nearly 2hrs and 15 min. If you saw the trailer, you pretty much saw the movie. so no real spoilers even if one wanted to give some.
I can't believe this movie has legs. I can't believe this movie has gotten pretty decent reviews in general(only reason I didn't read the slate review which would have been useful to me was because I didn't want any spoilers).

And I can't believe Brad Miller, the oh so critical one, actually gave this movie 4 out of 5 stars. Brad, youv'e gone soft, man!

I give this a C at best.

[ 06-23-2005, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-23-2005, 04:17 AM:

I thought it was OK. There could have been much more tongue-in-cheek action quoting clichés from superagent movies (like the getaway with the cable after the arms dealer assasination). The final showdown in the big store wasted the opportunity for the two master assasins to pull each trick in the book. It could have been much more interesting than just a big shootout.
It would also have been much better if they had at least had suspicions about their other identities. "Hey, that's your husband." "Hmm, OK, I guess I will have to kill him then."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-23-2005, 05:13 AM:

I have seen this movie twice now. Upon the second viewing I realized that I was wrong about my earlier review. I shall now update it.

4.5 out of 5 stars

This movie is just too much fun! [Big Grin]

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-23-2005, 09:47 AM:

I just saw this one last night.

I have said it before and I will say it again.

ahem....

PEOPLE JUST SIT DOWN AND RELAX... ITS ONLY A MOVIE!!!! [Mad]

I mean really, just how anal does someone have to be to poke and prod a movie to be so damned perfect before they like it? [sex]

This film, yes, had its trouble spots, like any other film. But do you go to six flags and judge how boring the rides will be, then after the ride you try to convince everyone in line how stupid it was and not to waste thier time? [uhoh]

GEEEEZZZZEE!!!! [Razz]

This film was AWESOME!!! I just loved it. So what if it wasn't based in reality! WHO THE HELL CARES? Since when do we have competing spy agencies with paid assassings running amok through a walmart blowing everything up in sight??? [Eek!]

Really, though, great show, great time, it was a lot of fun for anyone who just want's to just have a good time and not worry about real life for a while. [beer]

Ciao

Posted by Jean-Pierre Van Hoof (Member # 2063) on 08-16-2005, 09:19 AM:

Hmm the film looks great and still does after 4 weeks running but our dolby digital track went from a 4. average to a 7 or 7. in just 4 weeks of running.

Grtz
JP

eddit for spellcheck ;-)

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 08-16-2005, 02:48 PM:

quote: Richard Greco
... Especially for the dominatrix scene.

Yers.... In our little community changeover house it was sadly my turn to show this movie, and I spent altogether too much time with my eyes through the porthole, and this scene could have ruined my whole night... I'm not (and will never be) a very experienced projectionist, doing perhaps six presentations a year, so my routines are not sufficiently well embedded to survive this sort of distration :-)

Fortunately, professionalism overcame lecherism...

Did enjoy what I saw of the movie, and would definitely like to see it again.

On saturday it was surposed to be Ladies in lavender not Mr and Mrs (which is why I was scheduled to present, lavender not being a movie I really fancy much), but there are no prints available at the mo, too popular at the second run houses. But the distri did say if we wanted it "on disc" we could have it immediately... Just as if, are there any digital houses in NZ?

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 09-07-2005, 01:30 PM:

Finally saw this over the holiday weekend. I had to laugh at the one scene where Angelina and Brad have the guy tied up in the hotel room. He was wearing a Fight Club t-shirt. [Smile]