ValentineXavier
-
Posts
6,917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by ValentineXavier
-
-
Mitchum is probably my favorite actor. I don't think I ever saw a performance of his that I didn't like, at least a bit.
While I think that *Out of the Past*, and *Night of the Hunter* are Mitchum's best films, and I like them both a lot, my favorite, the one I enjoy the most, has to be *His Kind of Woman*, with Jane Russell, Vincent Price, Raymond Burr, and lots of other good actors. It's one of those few films that is both film noir, and, at least in spots, comedy. It's lots of fun.
There are two other Mitchum films I would recommend, that I think are highly under-appreciated. They are both film noir westerns: *Blood on the Moon*, and *Pursued*. Both are realistic, and gritty. *Pursued* you could even call an existential western, with just a touch of surrealism.
-
The three icons are at the top of the POST you want to edit, on the right. Not the top of the page.
-
> {quote:title=JHNDLTN wrote:}{quote}Fred....There are only two icons. One is to report abuse and the other is to reply to a thread. did I miss something?
After 24 hours, you can't edit a post, and won't get the edit icon.
-
The Runt, by 3 points.
-
Simply put, I think this is Lucas' second best film, his best being *THX1138*. But, as Darkblue explained so well, I think you have to be of the right generation to truly appreciate it. The nostalgia for the early 60s, in this film made in 1973, has the still-real threat, to draft age males, of Viet Nam, hanging over it. '62 seemed like such a peaceful, understandable era, compared to 1973, to those of us of age then. This is perhaps one of the most wistful films ever made. I can take or leave Dreyfus, but think he was right for this part. The music in the soundtrack is perfect. I, too, am glad it wasn't Elvis. And, I find Wolfman Jack reassuring, comforting, not annoying.
-
I'd like to throw a few cartoons into the mix, preferably Fleischer Bros. Koko the Clown silents, and Betty Boop would be wonderful!
-
Martha Vickers, who played Carmen in *The Big Sleep* was surely a "one hit wonder." She only made a couple of other films, and they certainly weren't "hits."
I mentioned this in that year or so ago thread, on the same topic.
-
Fred, if one had TCMHD, they don't need to zoom the picture, to fill the screen from side to side. This is why TCMHD better for widescreen films than TCMSD, even though TCMHD isn't true HD. IMO, all channels should be sending their widescreen content in anamorphic, so they wouldn't waste pixels on black bars. We'd only have to stretch the picture, not zoom it.
-
Hollywood may not have started its fixation on mammoth **** until the 40s, but men's fixation on them goes back at least 24,000 years. The fertility symbol The Venus of Willendorf is proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf
It seems in those ancient days, men liked women who were, well, rather fleshy, by today's standards.
Edited by: ValentineXavier on May 19, 2012 10:46 PM
Edited by: ValentineXavier on May 19, 2012 10:47 PM
Edited by: ValentineXavier on May 19, 2012 10:48 PM
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
>
> I believe I could ignore the issue if it were not for the similar word inflammation. Does that mean an arthritic joint is not in a state of flammation? Can a thing be flammated?
>
> Can an inept person better themself by becoming ept?
>
Yes, it is odd that inflammable and flammable mean exactly the same thing. But, how about "sanctioned," which can mean opposite things? If something is "sanctioned," that means it is legally approved. But, if someone is "sanctioned," it means that coercive measures to their detriment have been applied.
"Inept" and "ept" remind me of something similar we used to say, when I was in HS in the 60s. I don't know if it was just a local expression, or more widespread. We know what "uncouth" means. So, can a person be the opposite, "couth?" In my HS, we figured they could. When someone did something thoughtful for someone, we would say that they "had couth."
-
I like Boston ****, so don't get me wrong, but every time he disguises himself, he becomes an old goat in a goatee. He seems to have little imagination in disguises. In this outing, Sgt. Matthews uses a similar disguise!
-
I recall having the comic book of the 1961 George Pal film *Atlantis, the Lost Continent*. I wanted to see the film very much, but didn't get to see it when it was in theaters, but saw it years later, on TV. As I recall, the comic book had some hints of sex, missing from the film.
-
BrianM, I found your post interesting and informative. At the risk of being called a nit picker, I have to say I got a good chuckle at this:
>Few people seldom mention it,
That would mean that many people often mention it.
Of course I know what you meant, but I find it as funny as "They stayed away in droves..." and similar back-handed statements. I'll remember it, for future use. 
-
> {quote:title=konway87 wrote:}{quote}
>
> There was an assassination scene in Hitchcock's film Foreign Correspondent (1940). It was the scene where the killer shot the man with the gun right next to the camera. Two years after the release of Foreign Correspondent, Hitchock heard that this assassination scene was copied in real life to kill someone at a place called Tarahan.
>
Perhaps Hitchcock was the first to use it, but the gun hidden in the camera has been used in many films. I recall one instance of modern use - in real life. After 9/11, but, (IIRC,) before we declared victory in Afghanistan, the leader of the Afghanis' Northern Alliance, (Masood, IIRC,) who was our ally against the Taliban, was killed that way by a guy (Taliban, I think,) pretending to be a reporter, pretending to film Masood.
I seem to recall the gun in a camera being used on a race horse in a 1930s detective film, too.
-
We need a thread about why some people continue to claim that 'TCM is becoming less classic,' despite loads of empirical evidence to the contrary.
-
> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote}*I say the story -and how good it entertains- lets us suspend our disbelief.*
>
> Great post. And I think actors play a part in that. My mind keeps wandering back to The Marx Brothers - their movie plots are incredibly contrived, but between the brilliant, rapid-fire dialogue, the slapstick and what have you, it doesn't matter that you're watching something like, say, the goings on in a crazy place like Freedonia - you just want the actors/characters to keep on going (well, if you're a fan, anyway!)
For me, watching the Marx Bros. doesn't involve "suspension of disbelief." I am in complete and utter disbelief the whole time I am watching them. That's why I like them so much!
-
"Far from the best?" I'd call it one of the best, and probably the most haunting.
I haven't posted on this thread before, because I have no idea which scores were the "most popular." But, one could find out, simply by looking at the sales of the soundtrack albums, or sheet music, before that.
One of my favorites is Burt Bacharach's score for the 1967 *Casino Royale*. The score for *Zorba the Greek* most of Nino Rota's scores for Fellini films, and *The Third Man* score are also favorites. But, I have no idea how popular any of them were.
-
If you had my TV, you'd only have to be 6 ft. away. I sit about 8 ft. away. Next time I buy a TV, it will be bigger. And, cost less than the one I have now, even though it will be better.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> > I saw a new 70mm print, from the front row of a theater with a very large screen, and I could definitely see the grain of the film.
> That's too close. At that closeness you can see texture in the cloth screen itself.
>
> You *need to sit about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way back toward the projection booth*, and in the center seat in the row.
Maybe that's where YOU "need" to sit, but not me. I'll admit that is the sweet spot for the surround sound. But, my theory is that at least 70% of your visual field should be the film. I much prefer sitting up close. It's more like being there. But, at least we now know why you never see grain in the films...
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> We did not see fuzzy or grainy films in theaters in the old days.
Fred, there is a difference between a film being "grainy," and being able to see the grain in a film. I agree that films are rarely "grainy," if one sees a good 35mm print. But, from where I sit in theaters, I can see grain in the film, in virtually all films projected from prints. I think it was back in the 80s, when they did a major restoration of the 70mm print of *Lawrence of Arabia*. I saw a new 70mm print, from the front row of a theater with a very large screen, ans I could definitely see the grain of the film.
Oddly enough, IIRC, the only parts of the film that I thought looked just a bit grainy, were some out doors, bright-of-the-day shots in the open desert, where film speed and lighting couldn't have been a problem.
-
Fred, I always sit front row center, and I saw/see plenty of grain in 35mm movies, old and new. It is the most noticeable when shooting low-light scenes in color films, because they had to use faster film stock. There is a scene shot at night in the rainforest in *The Emerald Forest*, (a favorite of mine,) that is particularly grainy.
I think what that Criterion post is referring to is the fact that when they go too far with trying to eliminate the grain, when doing Hi Def transfers, the digital copy looks weird, almost painted, and they then add back some texture, aka "grain." Yeah, I agree, that is a stupid, artificial process. They should just do a good transfer, w/o the "over scrubbing" in the first place.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> > That's one reason I tend to like indoor cycling better.
> I tried that once, but I got hit by an indoor bus.
I find that you're more likely to get bit by an indoor dog...
-
> {quote:title=pionex_123456 wrote:}{quote}i am not saying that letterboxing doesn't have it's place, but movies made after the mid 1970's don't need to be letter boxed, they were shot to fit on to a standard tv screens. the letterboxing does add some things to the picture, but it takes away other things, while it gives you a wider field of view, you loose detail to the picture, trying to read a note in a movie, or see a foot behind a curtian becomes almost impossiabe depending on the movie, even with a new giant screen tv it doesn't help that much, with 12 inches( relitively speaking ) of black on the top and the bottom of the screen it is almost impossiabe to see any thing, while it allows you to see the big picture well enough, the detail gets lost.
Your logic is somewhat faulty. Take a film shot in 35mm, meant to be shown at 2.35:1 using a mask, but shot so that more image above and below the mask is filmed. Using part of the image that wasn't intended to be seen, you could fill a 4x3, or 16x9 screen top-to-bottom, eliminating the black bars. (1.85:1 images are so close to 16x9, that thin black bars, if they exist, hardly matter.)
That would make absolutely no difference in the resolution of the picture. You have the exact same amount of pixels, showing exactly the same image in the image portion of the LB frame, as in that portion of the fullscreen frame. That is because nothing is magnified, when showing it in full screen. The only way the image would be magnified, is if a WS film was shown in 4x3, by cropping the sides. Then, the image would be magnified.
It's worth noting that a LB DVD, if it is anamorphic, will be quite sharper than other formats, because it wastes no pixels on black bars.
So, your contention that LB pictures lack detail on a "giant screen" TV just isn't true. Logic shows that the "detail," aka resolution, would be exactly the same.
-
I don't have a BD player yet, but grain was already a problem, with a top quality DVD transfer, played back on a top quality up-converting DVD player. So, I'm sure it will be even more noticeable with Blu-Ray. That's the nature of the medium, and people should just get over it.
The Avengers
in Science Fiction
Posted
> {quote:title=joefilmone wrote:}{quote}
> I thought they finally got the Hulk right and he has the most crowd pleasing moment in the movie.
Which would be whacking Loki?