AMC Finely Dose Something Right!!!!!!

[kennethlawson]

AMC is running Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iweo Juema. Saturday night, without comericials!!

[movieman1957]

Yeah, but are they going to show it in widescreen? (I doubt it.)

[Hibi]

Why are they so reluctant to show widescreen? They think people wont like it? Many people have widescreen tvs now........

[kennethlawson]

I guess we'll have to wait and see, I would image any print they got would be wide screen, not that it matters, I only have a 27' tv...lol I checked the schedule, they're showing it twice in a row.. and without comericals for them that a big deal, I wonder what kind of deal they made to get it?

[talkietime]

In the old days AMC would sometimes run widescreen movies and the narrowscreen pan and scan version in the same evening.

 

The first instance of an AMC widescreen showing that I still have is Spartacus (1960) shown on 3/20/92; the last was The Big Trail (1930) shown on 4/27/2001. Of course by 2001 AMC was well on its way into the abyss.

 

One wonders if the average AMC viewer is discerning enough to know that when viewing a narrowscreen pan and scan job that they're just seeing a portion of the movie. With all the editing and commercials AMC viewers tolerate perhaps they've been dumbed down so much that they don't even care.

[danthemoviefan]

If they crunch the end credits to make room for a promo, as AMC has done with films since it went to commercials, then the presentation won't truly be commercial free (much less "uncut" or "unaltered," if that's AMC's intent with this film's broadcast).

[kennethlawson]

Heres the link from the AMC page;

 

http://www.amctv.com/movienights/premiereevent_lettersfromiwojima/

 

It doesn't say anything about the format or lack of comericials, its comerical free on the ads,

[kennethlawson]

I watched and recored Iwo Jima Last night, They ran it two times in a row, I watched and taped the 1st running, and enjoyed it. There was a short introduction by Clint Eastwood, then the movie all the dialog was in Japense with subtitles, which meant you had to really pay attention to it. There was a several minute short tell about the making of the movie which was also very interesting.

I was very impressed with the movie, It was very well done and Clint Should be very proud

[FredCDobbs]

I thought it was a good film. The small sub-titles bothered me at first, but after I began to understand the basic plot, they weren?t very necessary. I think this would be a good film to watch after seeing ?The Sands of Iwo Jima?. I always suspected there might have been some Japanese guys who weren?t brutal and who thought all the machoism of their commanders was not appropriate. This film helps one to understand why the Japanese came around so easily to supporting American occupying forces right after the war. I suspect there were a large number of Japanese who didn?t support the fascist militarism of the war era.

[Film_Fatale]

then the movie all the dialog was in Japense with subtitles, which meant you had to really pay attention to it.

 

So dialogue that is in English doesn't require any attention?

 

Personally, I'm just as liable to get distracted whether listening to the dialogue or reading subtitles and/or captions. But that's just me.

[Big_Bopper]

"This film helps one to understand why the Japanese came around so easily to supporting American occupying forces right after the war. I suspect there were a large number of Japanese who didn?t support the fascist militarism of the war era."

 

maybe. I suspect having two major cities nuked into jelly might be more reason. After all Bush only blew up a few wtc buildings & he is enormously hated.

[TripleHHH]

Dose or Does ?