Ugh. 4:3?
Apparently, they did a bluray of this little gem, and the colors do pop. Which might be a nice change, as my DVD looks like it was mastered for VHS.
https://diaboliquemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Theater_of_Blood_09.png
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_61/theatre_of_blood_blu-ray.htm
That one is on my mental list now too. I knew of it but your description is really enticing.
@TobinL I know Iām missing out. Thatās the worst part. I do know about the lasting influence; like, Iāve seen many of the iconic moments, but out of context. I can watch practically any old sound movie and enjoy it (even if itās objectively bad) so I feel kind of dumb that I have trouble watching these.
I have, actually, seen a few on film on the big screen with live music - some of which were the aforementioned Ozu films, though, which keep my attention anyway.
I do love a well-played Wurlitzer. Just last week I saw the new 70mm print of 2001 at the Castro Theater, and before the show the organist played several pieces, ending with the two iconic classical pieces from the movie, with really fun organ arrangements.
Near me in Niles, CA is actually a silent film museum. Chaplin worked for the film studio that was there for a year starting in 1914; he left the following year (to make more money elsewhere) and the studio folded a year later; according to the museumās website it was also in part because of the broader shift to feature-length narrative films made in the new studios in Hollywood because the studio in Niles was built around producing one-reel shorts.
But the museum is an original nickelodeon theater, built in 1913, and they have silent films (on film) weekly (including programs of multiple shorts). I have been to the town and seen the theater, but didnāt have time to go in. I live close enough though that I should just go when I have a chance.
I actually have two one-reel Bronco (or Broncho) Billy shorts, which, I just discovered after looking at the museum website, were produced at the studio that was in Niles, which means they are from 1916 or earlier (I donāt know if the prints are actually that old). I acquired them because they were in the office of the movie club I was in the leadership of in college (we played second-run 35mm films in a big lecture hall on campus with vintage projectors every weekend) and when we had to clean out the office nobody knew where they came from or what to do with them. My dad has 16mm and 8mm projectors so I took them to see what they were. I never did try to project them, which is probably a good thing, and they are in a climate-controlled room at my parentsā house, but I should figure out something to do with thoseā¦
You have to be careful. Often silent movie showings attract oh-so smart people who come only to laugh at them. These kind of people ruined some viewings of āWingsā and āSunriseā among others that I have attended.
Well that sucks. I havenāt encountered that at the Seattle showings happily. I really need to see Sunrise and Wings and more drama in general. Though one of my happy memories was seeing Murnauās Faust and since it had German intertitles they had a celebrity interpreter. I have seen Teller speak on stage.
āSunriseā is magnificent. Any frame of that movie could stand alone as a work of art.
I have seen bits of it when I was busy with other things the day the wife was watching it so I know how beautiful it is.
Yes yes you should. Also a lot is on archive.org. You can start with the lesser known but very funny Charley Chase who did go on to make sound films as well.
I forgot to mention that I have seen The Great Dictator, which I loved. The way he utilized the filmmaking style of Triumph of the Will, culminating in his still-stirring speech at the end, was genius.
Triumph of the Will gives you an astounding sense of impending doom, even today. I donāt know what Germans thought about it at the time but knowing what we do now about what the Nazis were doing and would do makes it especially powerful, even distressing.
In The Great Dictator (which apparently Chaplin said he would not have made if he had known what the Nazis were actually doing) he uses similar filmmaking and editing techniques to lampoon the nazis, but also to rouse the audience against them. Itās optimistic but certainly not uplifting; itās a call to arms. Watching it today and knowing what would happen over the few years after its release, and that millions would die, the ending gives you almost the same sense of dread that Triumph of the Will does, which gives it a lot of staying power.
Finally got around to seeing Rogue One, and it was pretty great. It was cool to see Darth Vader, and the CG Grand Moff Tarkin and Princess Leia wasnāt too distracting. Very dark and gritty for a star wars film, and clearly they were trying to go for a Vietnam vibe in parts like the rebels who went with them to get the plans, wearing helmets that look just like US military helmets worn during Vietnam.
Might be my favorite of the disney era Star Wars so far.
better than Solo?
speaking of solo, I foolishly saw the 3d version-- which did not impress. It seemed really quite dim, as though all the sets were dusty.
Solo?
They should have called it Trio!
Am I right?
Is this mic on?
It would probably have been my favorite, had they waited to start shooting until they actually had a finished, coherent shooting script. I loved the vibe, and the seat-of-the-pants, barely-getting-away-with-it sense of the heist, but I felt the seat-of-the-pants, barely-getting-away-with-it approach to filmmaking hurt the final product.
And I thought the film was overcrowded with heroes, to the detriment of their meaningful contribution. Chirrut and Baze were amazing and stole every scene they were in. Cassian was more important to the actual plot, but a whole lot less interesting. Saw was kind of a waste of Whitakerās talents. Of those four we could have lost two and had a tighter, more coherent narrative.
Iād say yeah. I enjoyed Solo, but I liked Rogue one better.
All of the post Disney SW movies seem to have this issue.
That said, Iāve enjoyed all of them. I think TLJ suffered the worst for me.
Solo was just a good campy heist movie with some Star Wars back story shoehorned in.
Isnāt this a JJ Abrams thing in general, though?
The Star Trek reboots had it.
The Force Awakens definitely had it ā itās a good job I decided to wait until that thing was on DVD to see it, because I spent the whole time yelling things like, āwait, so the Millennium Falcon was abandoned with those giant creatures locked in the hold for who knows how long, and theyāre still alive???ā at the screen the whole time.
All of them just seem to be a string of set pieces linked by short banter scenes, with a vague nod in the direction of Joseph Campbell.
so, you missed the part where Han and Chewie were smuggling the giant creatures on board their ship, but then transferred them to the Falcon when they got control of it again? those things were not on the Falcon the whole time.
Apparently. By the time that happened Iād done a lot of yelling at the screen, and was losing interest. I was probably second-screening this board.
Given Iāve used that as an example at least a dozen times in conversation and this is the first time someone has filled the plot hole, thatās not saying much for the film.
(How did Han and Chewie have time to do that? This is Star Wars ā no teleporters!)
itās been a long time since i saw it, but i seem to recall them trying to herd them onto the Falcon, but something going awry. iām not sure they ever DID get them on board.
