Discland
edited by Jonathan Doyle
Cloverfield [BLU-RAY] (Paramount Home Entertainment, 6.3.2008) Disguised under deliberately goofy, yet deliciously edible-sounding, aliases such as Cheese and Slusho, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield was produced and rushed into theaters under an equally appetizing shroud of secrecy. From last year's incredibly elusive Super Bowl ad to the film's viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield had everybody scratching their heads and drooling in anticipation. Aside from the as-yet untitled title and the Blair Witch-ian visual style, the film's biggest appeal was the enigmatic creature who was last (un)seen hurling the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty onto the crowded streets of New York City. All we knew about the mysterious beast was that it was big and angry. Now that the highy-anticipated project has come and gone, one question has fortunately been answered: Cloverfield was a major success. (continued)

Upcoming


July 2

Hancock

July 3

The Whackness

July 4

Diminished Capacity

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson

Holding Trevor

Kabluey

We are Together

July 9

Full Battle Rattle

July 11

A Man Named Pearl

August

Eight Miles High

Garden Party

Harold

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Meet Dave

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

The Stone Angel

July 18

A Very British Gangster

Before I Forget

The Dark Knight

The Doorman

Felon

Lou Reed's Berlin

Mad Detective

Mamma Mia!

Space Chimps

Take

Transsiberian

July 22

Two Tickets to Paradise

July 23

Boy A




 

Film Forum celebrates UA

A fantastic five-week Film Forum series celebrating the 90th anniversary of United Artists -- March 28th to May 1st. I own 75% of these films on DVD; the likelihood that they'll look better at the FF (even with the promise of new prints) than they do on my Sony flat-screen is not high. But I love the thought of under-30s catching and enjoying Kiss Me Deadly or Red River or Night of the Hunter or Manhattan or Tom Jones or Orphans of the Storm or Douglas Fairbanks' Robin Hood for the first time during this series.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM

comment #1

JHRussell [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

I only saw "The Knack, and How to Get It" for the first time about a year ago...what a hoot!

That is a great lineup.

Posted by JHRussell [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 11:17 AM

comment #2

Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Jeff, don't you mean flat-screen *CRT*?

Posted by Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 11:25 AM

comment #3

Rich S. [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Wow, I'd kill just to see the Goldfinger/Dr. No double bill on the big screen.

Posted by Rich S. [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 11:27 AM

comment #4

BurmaShave [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

"the likelihood that they'll look better at the FF (even with the promise of new prints) than they do on my Sony flat-screen is not high."

Remember you wrote that the next time you write about the death of the cinema experience.

Posted by BurmaShave [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 11:40 AM

comment #5

Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Dang Burma, your point is better than my sarcasm.

Yeah, Jeff-- if you, filmlover extraordinaire, is willing to stay home and watch these movies on a *crappy* TV, what about all the millions of people and families who choose to do the same with their big screen TVs and surround sound systems?

Are you a Gorilla Nation citizen if you wait six months to see No Country for Old Men at home vs. going out to the theater? What if you see the movie at home but fall in love with it, what then?
Would your head explode like the guy in "Scanners" when confronted with that Escher-like situation?

No, really Jeff. We'd love to know.

Posted by Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:00 PM

comment #6

Gordie Lachance [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

I only wish I could afford a new t.v.

I saw Crimes & Misdemeanors at the FF last year and got sat 3 rows away from my date due to the overcrowding. It's just a shame that there's not a bigger, more modern theater that cares about revivals.

Posted by Gordie Lachance [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:08 PM

comment #7

christian [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

My favorite soundtrack is the double lp UA put out in the 60's to celebrate their work of the decade. I grew up on that thing as it had new John Barry orchestrations for Bond and an utterly incredible version of THE KNACK theme that I have never been able to find on disc. It even included Monty Norman's version of DR. NO.

Anybody have a lead on where to get this on disc? I have two copies of the album, and you can still find then occasionally in used record stores...

Posted by christian [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:09 PM

comment #8

Edward Havens [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

With all due respect, Wells, most under-30s who will have the ability to attend the Film Forum to see these movies simply will not. If I were a betting man, I'd put good money on the over/under for median age attending these screenings at 55.

Posted by Edward Havens [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:15 PM

comment #9

jaredsap [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Remember a few years ago when Wells wrote a preposterous article about how Sony's beautiful restoration of IN A LONELY PLACE looks too grainy on DVD and they should have taken their cue from Paramount's wretched SUNSET BLVD. restoration in which Paramount removed grain and turned Wilder's film into plastic?




And then film restoration expert Robert Harris tore Wells's asshole open and wrote:




"What you seem to be saying is that a painting by impressionist Georges Seurat would look better if it didn't have all those annoying dots. The dots are the painting... You are a corrupted video viewer. You have been won over by the dark side. When one removes grain, there can be a certain amount of image interpolation, much like line-doubling. There is also a loss of resolution as at a certain point, there is no information... Why not digitally correct the Picassos? Changing a film's grain structure, which is its prime atomic particle, is precisely the same as colorizing."




To claim that new 35mm prints are inferior to DVD is monumentally ignorant and completely nonsensical. You'd have to be braindead to keep pushing this argument as Wells has done.

Posted by jaredsap [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:16 PM

comment #10

jaredsap [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Here's the full discussion (scroll down) if you want to see just how little Wells understands about celluloid:

http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/elsewhere/65.html

Posted by jaredsap [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:27 PM

comment #11

JeffGP [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Edward Havens, your comment about under-30's isn't quite as silly as Jeff's comment about DVD's looking better than 35mm, but it's silly nonetheless. As an under-30, I can attest that quite a high percentage of under-30's attend the rep screenings at Film Forum. Film Forum attracts folks of all ages, and I'm sure, as usual, most of these screenings will be completely packed and sold-out, as Gordie pointed out. Luckily they recently installed newer, comfier seats.

Posted by JeffGP [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:29 PM

comment #12

christian [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

I can imagine Jeff's response:

"Hey, it's the 21st century. Only an unhip-go-to-the-revival-house-geek doesn't want digital perfection over an old-fogey print. You have to roll with punches not get swept out to sea. Get with the new program."

Posted by christian [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 12:29 PM

comment #13

mutinyco [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

The grain issue is a valid argument, I think. The fact is, grain does not translate well to digital. Digital always had a difficult time rendering celluloid grain. I'm not against a reasonable amount of polishing for DVD/HD so long as it's not a functionally different image. After all, most repertory prints are old, damaged and deteriorating, therefore grainier than the original prints.

I'm not sure the Seurat analogy is apt. It's not that he painted with "dots," it's that when you see an actual painting up close you can see the artist's brushstrokes and the texture of the canvas, whereas in a photo or print often the image has been flattened in the translation.

The real problem is when a movie intentionally pushes the grain (Eyes Wide Shut, '70s Altman, etc.), and then that image is "cleaned up" for video. Often, seeing a rep screening can be like watching a movie anew.

All that said, our viewing habits have been altered because of TV and video. We've become accustomed to grainless images. And as we get more used to watching HD on our TVs, it will translate and coincide with the continued growth of digital production/distribution.

Posted by mutinyco [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 01:11 PM

comment #14

modernknife [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

So where is Michael Mann's "Thief"?
And yes, they should also be showing Michael Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" -- a stunning film to experience on the big screen.

Oh well...for those who are in San Francisco, the amazing Castro Theater is showing "Thief" and "The Driver" on 3/11/08. Walter Hill and Michael Mann taking it to the streets!

Posted by modernknife [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 02:13 PM

comment #15

George Prager [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

jaredsap seems to be obsessed with Wells' asshole. To each his own, I guess.

Posted by George Prager [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 02:18 PM

comment #16

George Prager [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Perfect Sunday afternoon used to be going to the Film Forum for a movie and then Brother's BBQ for dinner.

Posted by George Prager [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 02:20 PM

comment #17

jaredsap [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

You raise some fair points, mutinyco. But we're not talking about "old, damaged and deteriorating" repertory prints (which are actually the minority, not the majority as you claim). We're talking about good condition and newly struck repertory prints, which Wells has unfavorably compared to DVDs twice in the past 24hrs. Does anyone here not find that completely ludicrous?

Posted by jaredsap [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 02:22 PM

comment #18

bdboudreaux [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Fuckin' A. Well there goes all my money this spring. Honestly, even though the Film Forum is a shoe box with unfortunately placed columns it's still my favorite theater in the city, simply because it affords me the the opportunity to see so many films with a respectful audience off of 35mm film prints. I don't care how good your home theater is, nothing recreates that feeling.

Posted by bdboudreaux [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 02:37 PM

comment #19

TheJeff [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Standard DVD resolution = 720 x 480

35 mm film resolution = approx. 4096 x 4096

To suggest that DVD (or even the highest quality HD projectors) can even approach the quality of 35mm film is preposterous.

Posted by TheJeff [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 09:24 PM

comment #20

The Winchester [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Damn, this sounds like an awesome run. I'd go to at least half of them if I still lived in New York.

Posted by The Winchester [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 29, 2008 09:35 PM

comment #21

Edward Havens [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Havens to JeffGP... I cannot tell you how many times I went to Film Forum with my wife during the five years we lived in New York City to one their many themed series, only to discover we were the youngest two in the theatre. My "silly" comment comes from personal experiences at Film Forum over the course of several dozen screenings.

Posted by Edward Havens [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2008 12:44 AM

comment #22

Walter Sobchak [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Damn New Yorkers!

I'd be going to every single show if I was there.

Wowza.

Posted by Walter Sobchak [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2008 09:24 AM

comment #23

Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Surprised they left out PELHAM 123, given it's a home-town film and the remake is imminent.

Posted by Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2008 11:22 AM

Post a Comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?