Foolscreen
September 21, 2006
When I heard that the original theatrical releases of Star Wars were going to be released in later 2006, I flipped out. I was so excited to buy the set and watch the movies I remember from my childhood. But when I got to the store, I found to my horror that there was something wrong with the DVD releases of these classics…
Foolscreen – when a widescreen movie is cropped and chopped to fill a 4:3 frame (one of the worst things you can do to a movie), thanks Cinema Blend and Urban Dictionary for the term! Now, what George Lucas has done to the original theatrical releases of Star Wars, episodes IV – VI, is not foolscreen, but he has presented it in letterboxed 4:3, a travesty of justice to these movies. If you don’t understand what this means, take a gander at the diagram below…
People think that since the 4:3 image is bigger on the TV (none of those stupid black bars), that they’re getting the upper hand. I don’t need to write more on this subject, it’s already been written on, visit the Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page for examples and further information. I just think that fans of the original theatrical releases should get a proper release. For even further reading, Wikipedia has some pages devoted to the aspect ratio. And the fact that this movie was shot in the ratio 2.35:1 means that it’s cutting way more off of the picture than foolscreening a 1.78:1 (16:9) movie. To paraphrase Scorsese: “Showing a movie in fullscreen is like if you took a painting and cut off the ends, it’s not the original artwork, nor is it the artists’ intent to present it as such.” Again, this limited theatrical release of Star Wars isn’t foolscreen, but I’m still outraged over their decision, when I could have even cropped and exported it in Final Cut Pro with ease. Ugh…
Sources: Cinema Blend, LWA, Wikipedia
Legal 5 finger discount
September 21, 2006
If you’re a fan of movies and a fan of downloading or a fan of downloading movies, mosey on over to the Internet Archive where they host plenty of pinnacles of classic cinema, all for free! Because of loopholes or forgetfulness or what have you, the movies on this site are copyright free and legal to download. They have greats like His Girl Friday with Cary Grant. Charlie Chaplin‘s The Kid, as well as the original Night of the Living Dead, Reefer Madness and Nosferatu. This is a hoard of good stuff just yearning to be watched, so do the classics proud and hit that download button.
Sources: The Internet Archive, Wikipedia
Stop Animation
September 19, 2006
Through a Digg article, I came upon this incredible stop animation short by a guy in the Netherlands. For most of the life I can remember, I’ve been entranced by stop motion, namely, Peter Gabriel‘s “Sledgehammer” video – always a source of ideas and motivation when I get stuck in one spot. Another stunning and inspiring animation is from director Michel Gondry (a master in his own right) for the White Stripes‘ “Fell in Love with a Girl.”
Logo look-a-like
September 19, 2006
I was at the movie theater this past weekend and thought the poster for the upcoming Sofia Coppola movie, Marie Antoinette, had a similar looking logo to the Sex Pisols‘ Never Mind the Bollocks…album cover. Maybe it’s because of the text design with similar colors…maybe.
Slicing up eyeballs, I want you to know
September 17, 2006
Just listened to Pixies‘ “Debaser” which is pretty darn good and I noticed it references Louis Buñuel and Salvador Dali’s Un Chien Andalou (The Illusion Dog), a short French film from 1929. I saw it in a few of my classes in past semesters – Introduction to Film and French Cinema. It’s very strange, but worth seeing once and give the song a listen too. Another movie Dali had his hand in was Hitchcock’s Spellbound from 1945, highly recommended.
The Black Dahlia
September 17, 2006
A swing…and a miss! I try to pick out films to go see based on how the trailer looks plus some back reading online. This looked to be a promising picture, but how wrong was I? Dead wrong! I might have understood the awfulness had the movie been directed by an unknown…but Brian de Palma, who’s given us some greats in the past, unacceptable! Especially after finding out that he tried for three years to get this made. If you want the basics of the film, check out IMDB, but for some critic reviews, hit up Rotten Tomatoes.
“To say [Hartnett] lacks charisma or screen presence is like saying Hurricane Katrina caused a few problems,” says Pete Vonder Haar (his review). How true. This is a film of wooden actors. Lead actors stink, supporting actors stink. The only one who truly does a decent job here is Mia Kirshner who plays Elizabeth Short, who in the movie, is a bad actress…ironic. Seems like maybe the actors were overacting to play along with the noir genre, but it doesn’t work in the least. I’m pretty sure I laughed aloud when Harnett cried toward the end and I’m pretty sure the rest of the theater (only about 30 people total) laughed too, because, hey, when you’re using more force to break a tear than trying to make your character believable, I think it deserves a chuckle. Scarlett Johansson was a joke, Hilary Swank was godawful and Aaron Eckhart didn’t quite seem to know what was going on. Another annoying bit was the ‘at least one person must be smoking in every scene’ idea. Take out the audio over dub and I bet you’ll hear De Palma saying, “…and action! Okay, now take out a cigarette and start smoking. Cigarette. CIGARETTE!” just imagine this line being said and watch the actors accordingly, it’s like they had to be reminded that they wanted to smoke. I don’t even recall seeing this much smoke in actual noirs of the 30s – 50s.
Roeper’s review also helps sum up some more feelings on the movie – “Well into the final act of Brian De Palma’s “The Black Dahlia,” I found myself asking questions one should not be asking nearly two hours into a noir thriller. Questions such as, “Now who’s that guy?” and, “How did that person know the victim again?” and, “Wait a minute, are we supposed to know who this guy is?”" But the rest of his review hardly parallels with mine, just this quote and his final paragraph – “The last-act revelations aren’t just implausible — they’re connected by only the barest of threads to previous events. In a murder mystery, we feel cheated when we’re introduced to key characters so very late in the game. All these murders and twists and turns, and now a bunch of people we hardly know are going to stand around explaining it all?”
The preview explains that “to the public, it was a sensation,” yet I don’t recall seeing the reaction of the public more than a brief time or two, the film is focused on “Bucky” Bleichert (Harnett), those close to him and those close to Elizabeth Short and her case. If the preview didn’t mention anything about the public and the murder being the “most notorious” in Hollywood, I wouldn’t know that the public knew much if anything about it, we just don’t get to see it, which could have added something, maybe a lot.
The back story is pretty interesting, one of the reasons for buying tickets to see it, so if you think it sounds good, read up on the actual case in the number of books out there or read Ellroy’s novel, I’m sure it’s exponentially better.
Rating: D
