AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This George Clooney-directed movie was released today on standard dvd.


The keep case is marked "Standard version - Presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition".


Is this a 1.33:1 format, or a WS format that just isn't anamorphic? Anyone know?


I wish the studios would just use a standard terminology for things like this. This appears to be the only format available - what ever it is... ??
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts
If I recall correctly, the film was 4:3 (or at least thereabouts). It's not a widescreen film, so it makes sense that that is the only version of it, and so that's the OAR version. It was done in the syle of the 40s or whatnot, with only the technology they had at the time. It's a good film though, cate blanchett is incredible as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,500 Posts
Right, I was refereing to another poster in this thread.


I just saw it, even thought it was indeed shot with the "Academy" AR, the DVD claims "it was modified to fit your screen"


The difference between the 1:37 and 1:33 can't be that much to warrant any modification.


Anyway it was an interesting looking film and mildly enetertaining. Actualy it reeminded me more to "Chinatown" then to Casablanca as far as the story goes. Especially the amount of fights Clooney is involved with.
Of course the ending is very much like..................


I think it's worth your time, I think many noir fans will like the shooting style, the score, and the some of the acting too. Blanchet really stood out IMO, and Maguire was just bad as usual I always thought of Clooney as a solid actor, with a charismatic voice, and he won't dissapoint here either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun /forum/post/0


I just saw it, even thought it was indeed shot with the "Academy" AR, the DVD claims "it was modified to fit your screen"


The difference between the 1:37 and 1:33 can't be that much to warrant any modification.

The DVD doesnt say that... At least not my copy, and I believe there is only one version. It clearly says on the back: " Standard Version - Presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition".

See it here: http://www.clooneystudio.com/the_goo...andvd-back.jpg


I think you also missed where it says: Directed by Steven Soderbergh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,500 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBerwell /forum/post/0


The DVD doesnt say that... At least not my copy, and I believe there is only one version. It clearly says on the back: " Standard Version - Presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition".

See it here: http://www.clooneystudio.com/the_goo...andvd-back.jpg


I think you also missed where it says: Directed by Steven Soderbergh

........and do you really wanna know what I think of what you think?




I'm not talking about what's on the back , but I'm talking about when you actually play the movie, the message is just before the B&W WB logo comes on. It was a rented copy, and it is indeed says 'Standard" which is not in dispute here. Why do you think I missed who the director was? Not to mention I have no idea what would be your point with that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun /forum/post/0


Right, I was refereing to another poster in this thread.


I just saw it, even thought it was indeed shot with the "Academy" AR, the DVD claims "it was modified to fit your screen"


The difference between the 1:37 and 1:33 can't be that much to warrant any modification.


Anyway it was an interesting looking film and mildly enetertaining. Actualy it reeminded me more to "Chinatown" then to Casablanca as far as the story goes. Especially the amount of fights Clooney is involved with.
Of course the ending is very much like..................


I think it's worth your time, I think many noir fans will like the shooting style, the score, and the some of the acting too. Blanchet really stood out IMO, and Maguire was just bad as usual I always thought of Clooney as a solid actor, with a charismatic voice, and he won't dissapoint here either.

Yeah, I don't know what Maguire was doing in this movie, that was just a terrible casting call IMO. Blanchet was always so compelling though, she makes the film worth seeing, there are some shots and scenes that are just fantastic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun /forum/post/0


........and do you really wanna know what I think of what you think?




I'm not talking about what's on the back , but I'm talking about when you actually play the movie, the message is just before the B&W WB logo comes on. It was a rented copy, and it is indeed says 'Standard" which is not in dispute here. Why do you think I missed who the director was? Not to mention I have no idea what would be your point with that.

Relax. He's from new jersey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
I did a search to see if I could find an existing thread for this film, but I came up zilch.


I watched this last night. I was ready to slit my wrist while trying to get through this "film". First off, what's up with the B&W and 4:3 frame? I guess they were going for a 'film noir' thing, but it just didn't work. Plus the B&W cinematography was just awful. Many shots were over exposed, and others were lit totally wrong. Cate Blanchet's lighting in the majority of her scenes made her look absolutely dreadful! I've seen better lighting techniques from a flashlight held beneath the chin. To see a high quality example of how B&W should be done, check out 'Shindler's List'.


Clooney! What the hell do you call that?!?! Surely you wouldn't call that acting? George Clooney looked completely bored in every scene. Even when he was getting the crap kicked out of him. And Blanchet wasn't much better. Must have been a synergy thing... Or lack of. Of course, maybe if there had been something for the actors to grab a hold of such as some sort of semblance of a story, then maybe they would have done a better job of selling their parts.


I still don't think I see any point to this film. I came away from it thinking the whole thing was just a poorly written, badly acted rip-off of Casablanca.


Oh yeah, the music stunk too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
Same Cate Blanchet did not work for me at all.

Most German "Cate"s with some English skills could do much better imho.


Plot was interesting. Post ww2, who got what.

Film I saw was bad too - white dot mid frame. Old film look - great.

Distracting mid film eye pain is bad.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar /forum/post/0


I did a search to see if I could find an existing thread for this film, but I came up zilch.


I watched this last night. I was ready to slit my wrist while trying to get through this "film". First off, what's up with the B&W and 4:3 frame? I guess they were going for a 'film noir' thing, but it just didn't work. Plus the B&W cinematography was just awful. Many shots were over exposed, and others were lit totally wrong. Cate Blanchet's lighting in the majority of her scenes made her look absolutely dreadful! I've seen better lighting techniques from a flashlight held beneath the chin. To see a high quality example of how B&W should be done, check out 'Shindler's List'.

Wow. You must not know anything about the purpose of making this film. The whole point was to use only technology available at the time. No zoom lenses, no wireless lapel mics, only the lighting available in that era, full frame, using only film stock from that era. This limited the shots and feel of the film in a way that was purposeful, and actually ended up quite interesting. No, it never should have looked like Shindler's list, and that's the entire point. It seems like you missed the point of the project ENTIRELY. The point was to capture the limitations of the Casablanca era, by literally using ONLY technology available during that era. And overall, I think they succeeded quite well actually, if you are at all familiar with B&W film from that timeperiod, which it seems you are not at all.


Anyway I thought Cate Blanchette was fantastic as usual, I have no idea what Tobey Maguire was doing in this movie, that was a miscasting. Overall, it was a solid film and well worth the watch, despite its flaws. A very interesting experiment in style and trying to recapture the feel of films from the 1940s.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top