Now Showing - What We Watched - Page 238

Originally Posted by RTROSE 

"The Avengers" - BR - Well as noted there are some "issues"

There is nothing of any consequence below 25 Hz in the whole movie, and the single digits are pathetic. What a piece of crap.
There's some stuff near 16 Hz but, blah, blah and yawn.

To hell with this. On to prometheus!! 13 days

While the appearance of the Boeing B-17 (medium) bomber, the "Fortress" is very well done, in most of the scenes there is a minor innaccuracy in the takeoff film sequences. The film shows the fully loaded B-17 aircraft taking off with the speed, elegance and grace of a partially loaded fighter plane of that era. In reality, the word that best describes the takeoff of the fully loaded World War Two bomber is "Labored".

The depictions of the bomber stream when the bombers encounter Flak are well done. During their approach to target the bombers are attacked by enemy fighter aircraft and the film producers got the sound effcts wrong. The film depicts the sound of the bombers fifty caliber defensive fire against the fighters accurately but the attacking fire of the fighters is all wrong. The later model Messerschmitt (BF-109F) fighters shown, like all of the 109 fighters, were equipped with either fifteen or twenty millimeter cannon, one in each wing. These weapons had a slightly slower rate of fire combined with a much louder and distinctive report as each round was fired. The airmen who flew the bombers have always spoken of being able, by sound alone, to know when an enemy aircraft was firing its' armament. This type of innaccuracy could still be excused if the rest of the film was true to life in its representation.

The scene that is the real "Howler" occurs in that part of the film where the enemy gunfire flashes are shown. This scene also has an interception by Americam P-40 fighter aircraft of which more later. The scene shows the Luftwaffe aircraft using their smallest (7.62/.30 caliber) nose mounted machineguns to attack the bombers. Firstly, even if a german fighter pilot was literally able to attain 100% accuracy with these weapons, after firing all of his ammunition into a B-17 and having nothing left, the bomber would have proceeded onward as if nothing had happened. It would be like a single bee trying to drop an elephant. Secondly it was a not uncommon practice for Luftwaffe pilots to tell their ground crews not to put any ammunition in the nose guns as they were considered useless in aerial combat and the weight saving was a bigger positive for the overall performance of the fighter.

In the interception scene the B-17 bomber crew, under attack by five BF-109 fighters, call for help from any American fighters in the area. Help arrives in the form of two P-40 fighter aircraft which, in the film, shoot down three of the enemy aircraft and drive the other two off. The P-40 was one of the main fighter aircraft that the U.S. went to war with, having been designed and in production before the war. Due to USAAF guidelines, the P-40 operated at low altitude (below 12,000 feet); above which its performance, in all regards, rapidly fell off. As a consequence it was used either for ground attack, against bombers operating at low level or against other aircraft that had equal or inferior flight characteristics. A more important factor was the qualitative difference between the P-40 and the BF-109. The BF was superior in speed, rate of climb, ability to operate at higher altitudes and firepower. In this latter case the P-40, being equipped with six .50 caliber machineguns had to get in closer in order to be able to hit the enemy aircraft while the BF-109 could stand off and fire at greater ranges due to its cannon armament. The P-40 was equal to the BF-109 in dive and superior to it in turns. In the real life situation depicted in the film the P-40s would have attempted to draw off the BF fighters using a series of feints and mock attacks, assuming the American pilots had some experience and training. Unless American pilots flying P-40s had an overwhelming advantage in numbers at favorable altitude they would not have tangled with the Messerschmitts. Why the film makers did not depict the use of the P-51B or even P-47 as American fighters, which would have been more accurate and believable for this scene, escapes me.

Overall this is a watchable film that suffers mostly from lack of research by the film makers.

Originally Posted by The Mice 

With ...Halloween coming at the end of the month... watch some horror movies.

Dracula and Frankenstein were perfectly okay too.

Originally Posted by tlogan6797 

Glad you liked it! You watch it a few more times and it WILL grow on you. Put. Ze candle. BACK! Cracks me up every time.

We saw the Young Frankenstein musical last season, and it was pretty well done.

Originally Posted by J_P_A 

Blade Runner: Final Cut - 2/5
This is the first time I've seen this movie, and since I'm a sci-fi buff, I've been really looking forward to it. However, I was seriously let down. In all fairness, I generally don't care for older science fiction movies. I just don't think they hold up well over time. This movie is the perfect example. While the scenery was great, and it's a great HD remaster, my biggest issue was with the soundtrack. The background music was pretentious at best, and cringe worthy at worst. There were several times during the movie that I stopped paying attention to the movie because I realized I was annoyed by the music. Some of the camera work was baffling with the quick cuts that didn't seem to offer anything (e.g. the opening scene where you cut from outside the building to inside to back outside to back inside). And what was going in with Harrison Ford's eyes? Maybe I missed what he was trying to portray there, or maybe I was just annoyed with the movie at that point.
I realize this is a science fiction classic, and apparently most people really like it, but it just isn't my cup of tea. I might have expected it, though; I didn't like the book either At least I can say I've seen one of the classics!

“Why pay twelve bucks to see an old movie in a theater, then sit there the whole time and act superior to it?” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense to me. If you act that way, you’re wasting your money. You’re not getting everything out of the movie. You’re not experiencing it. Plus, this is not a black-and-white subtitled movie about sheepherders. It’s James Bond!”

Originally Posted by jdanforth 

I want to chime in here and offer my support of your position. Not liking this movie (ESPECIALLY as a total sci-fi nerd/junkie) has been seen as heresy by some of my friends. I get the movie. I get that it was revolutionary at the time but like so many Pollock imitations the original seems tired given that the formula has been reused ad infinitum.
This reminds me of the recent article about From Russia With Love or, more specifically, the author's irritation at the audience that was "watching it wrong." Just like with Blade Runner if you watch the movie with historical context in mind it will blow your top. If you watch it having just come off of a twitchy adrenaline-fueld Cloverfieldesque bender then you'll be left rather bored.
................

Originally Posted by J_P_A 

I was really expecting to get flamed here

Originally Posted by tony123 

RT, even though it wasn't "mother approved", I watched "Smokey" a few months ago with my 7 year old boys. They laughed and recited lines for weeks. I remember when I first watched it. I was too young too.
We have the Star Wars Bluray set, and have now watched through it twice already. They are very well done and if you're on the fence, I say do it. I know with young kids in the house, we'll watch them many times over before they leave.
I'm still wrapped up in a busy schedule with graduate school, work and work. We manage to get one movie in per weekend. Usually some junk the kids pick. Well, two enjoyable documentaries on Netflix streaming....The Monopoly Story and Being Elmo. Both good! The Elmo one was very inspirational.

Originally Posted by RTROSE 

^^^^^Ha yeah well might not be a movie for true "bass heads" but still my subwoofer was happy even if there is no single digit material. I do get a "boost" from my room in the 20-30 hz range so that might be why I noticed my sub so much.
Regards,
RTROSE

Originally Posted by J_P_A 

Whew! I was really expecting to get flamed here Glad I'm not the only heretic out there
That article you linked to reminds me a great deal of some of the "reviews" I've seen of the upcoming Cloud Atlas film. I've seen 10/10 reviews of that movie that defend themselves by taking the stand that if you don't like the movie, you're either not smart enough or too shallow. You can't shame someone into truly liking a movie.