Pacino86845 wrote:Those evil bastards AOL won't let me watch the second trailer... does anyone know if there's an alternative? Otherwise the teaser was pretty nice, but not very surprising I must say.
Ribbons wrote:I'm surprised nobody else in the Zone's seen this movie yet; thanks for the review stereos.
What was it about the epilogue that was too long? Was it a series of endings, or what?
Ribbons wrote:Lord Voldemoo wrote:I love westerns but I still haven't seen Yuma yet.
You totally should! It's a pretty solid movie, especially if you like Westerns.
stereosforgeeks wrote:I saw this today and damn I loved it.
It's still a tad too long at 2 hours and 40 min. The epilogue could use a bit of trimming.
It definitely had me enthralled throughout it's entire runtime.
The cast is outstanding. Pitt manages to be charismatic but ultimately psychotic. It is a pleasures to watch him shift moods at a whim.
Casey Affleck is haunted and you can see the hero worship in his eyes when he is with Jesse. Something doesn't sit right with you about him too and he always manages to be just this side of creepy.
Sam Rockwell is the older brother you had, but sometimes wish you didn't. He makes you feel like crap but ultimately will be there with you when sh*t goes down.
The story feels very novelistic due to the narration. The storybook feel adds to the sense of heightened reality surrounding the dime store novels which caused Robert Ford to be enamored with Jesse.
This is definitely one of the best movies that has come out this year.
stereosforgeeks wrote:They are like polar opposites in this movie. Affleck being squirrely (no offense minstrel) and creepy and Pitt being charismatic and powerful.
Just be prepared for the 2 hour and 40 min runtime.
The Vicar wrote:Lazy writers tailoring the script to their actors?
Nordling wrote:Sadly, it looks like this movie's getting dumped by Warner's, so I wouldn't expect to see it on any awards lists. But it's truly an amazing film.
Leckomaniac wrote:How the heck did you see this? I was under the impression it did not come out here until Thursday?
Pacino86845 wrote:Leckomaniac wrote:How the heck did you see this? I was under the impression it did not come out here until Thursday?
I was in Lausanne this weekend, and it'd already come out over there (two weeks already I think)... the French and German parts of Switzerland have different release dates for films.
Leckomaniac wrote:I am having a hard time with the way America films look in Europe. They all end up looking like BBC tv shows. I cant seem to get over that.
Pacino86845 wrote:Leckomaniac wrote:I am having a hard time with the way America films look in Europe. They all end up looking like BBC tv shows. I cant seem to get over that.
Are you saying the projections are not up to par with American cinemas? Maybe the screens tend to be smaller, but rowdy crowds and masses of popcorn-munchers are less of a problem here, generally speaking.
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:I would dispute, as Stereo said above, that Jesse was "psychotic", but I can see what Stereo was getting at. Rather, I would say that he's presented completely; does some of his actions contradict themselves? Sure, but the way that Jesse was presented, he contained multitudes.
Leckomaniac wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Leckomaniac wrote:I am having a hard time with the way America films look in Europe. They all end up looking like BBC tv shows. I cant seem to get over that.
Are you saying the projections are not up to par with American cinemas? Maybe the screens tend to be smaller, but rowdy crowds and masses of popcorn-munchers are less of a problem here, generally speaking.
Well I have yet to see a film in the theatre, but when I rented films and when I watched films on Europena channels...they had that BBC tv show feel. Its almost impossible to describe because I am not well versed in such things. But the actual films look less...polished. Almost as if they are missing a layer.
I have always been curious why that was. Maybe it is different in the theatre. I have no basis for comparison...just what I have witnessed on TV and the films I have rented. It was the same in Paris as well.
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Vaseline on the lens tactic to represent moments that occurred in the past got a bit stale
can poor Garrett "Jack McCall" & "Francis Wolcott" Dillahunt be in a Western and not get killed?
tapehead wrote:Leckomaniac wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Leckomaniac wrote:I am having a hard time with the way America films look in Europe. They all end up looking like BBC tv shows. I cant seem to get over that.
Are you saying the projections are not up to par with American cinemas? Maybe the screens tend to be smaller, but rowdy crowds and masses of popcorn-munchers are less of a problem here, generally speaking.
Well I have yet to see a film in the theatre, but when I rented films and when I watched films on Europena channels...they had that BBC tv show feel. Its almost impossible to describe because I am not well versed in such things. But the actual films look less...polished. Almost as if they are missing a layer.
I have always been curious why that was. Maybe it is different in the theatre. I have no basis for comparison...just what I have witnessed on TV and the films I have rented. It was the same in Paris as well.
British television is PAL format, which means it's broadcast at 25 frames per second, with each frame consisting in two interlaced fields - the scan lines which make up the picture. US tv is NTSC, which broadcast at 29.97 frames per second, and is also normally interlaced. They do look quite different, and, depending on whether what you're watching was actually shot on video, or has been transferred from film (which is always 24 frames per second) there are small elements in movement and definition that you can notice (I'm not talking about ED or HD tv here, which is a whole different ball park, but rather your regular analogue or standard definition RGB signals). The two formats have different colour casts as well. PAL is generally considered a slightly higher resolution format, as it has more vertical scan lines. but I always think I can see a little more nuance in movement in NTSC. You've got a good eye Lecko, a lot of people never even notice.
/end threadjack.
tapehead wrote:Film is universal - always projected at 24 frames per second, as far as I know. (I'm talking film here, in case digital theatre nerds want to chime in and correct me)
Lady Sheridan wrote:Pitt was meh. I couldn't help but compare him to Depp as the narrator intoned James' eye flaw, which Pitt failed to employ even once. I'm no Depp fangirl, but had he (or Crowe or Ledger) been playing James, you would have seen him so immersed as to have every one of those traits onscreen.
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Pitt was meh. I couldn't help but compare him to Depp as the narrator intoned James' eye flaw, which Pitt failed to employ even once. I'm no Depp fangirl, but had he (or Crowe or Ledger) been playing James, you would have seen him so immersed as to have every one of those traits onscreen.
I get what you're getting at (or, rather, where you got to already), but I kinda liked that - that, hey, the narrator said he'd be all twitchy eyed, and, yet...and yet, he's not. What gives? Should I trust this narrator? Who's telling the truth, what I see before me, or what's intoned?
For that matter...what is the truth? What is the sum of a man? How can you sum up a man, a legend, a myth...
which, oh fuck yeah, a puffed up preening poppycock of pretentiousness right there. How can/why should I bother to identify if you're telling me something I'm pretty sure I already know, that we, and to a greater extent, our legends, are, essentially, unknowable.
but I kinda liked that aspect of the film, and appreciated how that was established right from the start.
Lady Sheridan wrote: It's just that it got so wrapped up in trying to make itself so achingly important that it ceased to beat for me.
Lady Sheridan wrote:I wanted so badly for it to punch me in the gut. And it just didn't, because we'd be treated to another luxurious close-up of Pitt or Affleck dismounting off a horse...
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote: It's just that it got so wrapped up in trying to make itself so achingly important that it ceased to beat for me.
yeah, I con like a cur - I was a bit more forgiving than you, and even more forgivinger after catching it a 2nd time at home, where I was able to loll about on the couch with impunity - and stop the damn thing once or twice to re-charge the nicotine batteries.
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:perfunctory
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests