rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

That's crazy. I had no idea. (Not that I'm a huge fan of that film -- I HATED "Somewhere Out There." And I love '80s soft rock ballads performed by James Ingram!! lol). I did see the movie in theaters but I found the film saccharinely sweet and sentimental in a way that Disney's Menken era films were able to avoid being.

Most of the time, on the majority of catalog titles, what you're hearing when you see a 5.1 track is often just a movie's original stereo/surround track sent out as a 5.1 track. 90% of the time the studios aren't going to spend a lot of money on recording new vocal, foley work, etc., so it's not as if most 5.1 remixes are brand new "rethought" tracks. And I think the large majority of the time, the newer soundtracks work splendidly and open up the music far better than their comparative mono tracks.

Like, on CONAN THE BARBARIAN, that film SHOULD have been in stereo from the very beginning. I realize some purists have gone crazy over "you can't hear the chorus" in a few places, but for me, that's overridden by the fact that the mix is sensational and opens up Basil's music far more effectively than the cramped, crappy old mono soundtrack was able to.

The situations where they DO record new effects and foley work are really in a minority -- the majority of the time. Unfortunately when they get it wrong (JAWS is another one, as well as TERMINATOR, though I'm not as attached to that one so it doesn't bother me as much), the differences are glaring. I don't get the changes to AN AMERICAN TAIL at all.

Another example is SUPERMAN -- the music sounds so much better than it does on the 2.0 original stereo mix (it was remixed from the original audio tracks and you can tell), yet the new foley work bothers me every time I see it.

[AndyDursin]

Here's a post from the Original Trilogy message board on the alterations. It could be these were performed after the film was locked in and released...very curious.

Either way -- the good news is that if the HD master that airs on HDTV channels is the original audio mix, then 99.9% of the time the Blu-Ray is going to be derived from the same master. So if it ever shows up, chances are good it'll have the original theatrical audio:

An American Tail. I'm serious about this one. The 5.1 DVD remix is semi-notorious for being altered from the original Dolby Stereo. As with Superman, they added sound effects and they are sometimes quite intrusive. For example, Fievel is being pushed through the snow by one cat towards another, they added a train whistle sound. I know this is a cartoon, but that sound was not there originally, and it is inappropriately zany.

Also, there is additional walla and background "human world" dialogue. When we track in on the house at the beginning, you can hear laughter from the human inhabitants which spoils the music. When that lady in the apartment changes the cylinder in the gramophone, you can here a background conversation that was not in the original mix. Also, the frightened "A mouse!" screaming is different, and again more cartoonish, like something out of Tom and Jerry.

There is additional ADR that is by main cast members, so that was obviously recorded during production, but again, it is an alteration.

The most infamous change are the three orphans who taunt Fievel late in the film. In the original mix, their voices are either by kids or sound appropriately childlike. In the remix, they are clearly adults, and the actual lines are different. The most egregious difference (for many) is that as they are laughing at them, the one orphan doesn't chime in "Pit-ee-ful!"

However, most critics of this mix are wrong on one thing: they were not newly redubbed. The "new" voices are, in fact, the original tracks that the animation was synched to - the DVD version matches the mouth movements and the original mix doesn't. During post, they replaced the adult voices (Don Bluth's crew members, maybe?) with the ones heard in the final '86 mix. "Pitiful" may have even been an adlib by the kid brought in to redub the voice.

Who'd have thought this movie would have such an unfaithful remix? Fortunately, in this case the HDTV version is the original stereo from '86.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic. ... pic/14216/

[Monterey Jack]

That's crazy. I had no idea. (Not that I'm a huge fan of that film -- I HATED "Somewhere Out There." And I love '80s soft rock ballads performed by James Ingram!! lol). I did see the movie in theaters but I found the film saccharinely sweet and sentimental in a way that Disney's Menken era films were able to avoid being.

Funny...a lot of critics at the time groused about the film being too dark for young children. Yes, it's sentimental (how could a film about a young child forcibly seperated from his parents not be?), but compared to the non-stop slapstick of today's animated features, An American Tail plays like Schindler's Mice. It's a fairly Dickensian romp, with a lot of melancholy before the obligitpry happy ending. All of Don Bluth's 80's animation efforts are like that, which is why I find them bracing compared to today's gratingly manic 'toons...they take time to breathe.

The situations where they DO record new effects and foley work are really in a minority -- the majority of the time. Unfortunately when they get it wrong (JAWS is another one, as well as TERMINATOR, though I'm not as attached to that one so it doesn't bother me as much), the differences are glaring. I don't get the changes to AN AMERICAN TAIL at all.

Another example is SUPERMAN -- the music sounds so much better than it does on the 2.0 original stereo mix (it was remixed from the original audio tracks and you can tell), yet the new foley work bothers me every time I see it.

Yes, Jaws' 5.1 remix was a disaster...they totally omited the "whale song" sound effect! And that was a film that won an Academy Award for Best Sound. At least the 25th anniversary DVD and the Blu-Ray sensibly offered the mono soundtrack. If Tail ever hits Blu (I'm kind of amazed it hasn't yet, and that it even took about seven years into the DVD format before getting released there...the film was a huge hit back in 1986), I pray the theatrical sound mix is included. I still can't own The Terminator on Blu. because they couldn't get the sound right even after two releases.

[mkaroly]

OBLIVION - 5/10. I don't have much to add to what has already been said. It has entertainment value but it was so clichéd at times that I just didn't believe it. There are some twists and turns towards the ending (which may or may not make sense, depending on whether or not you have the energy to think them through), but I thought Cruise was trying too hard at times. I did like many of the visuals, but ultimately it was a very average film. Entertaining, but very average.

[mkaroly]

EARLY SPRING (1956) - 9/10. Two words I would use to describe an Ozu film are 'subtle' and 'quiet', which is one of the reasons I like his work. I decided to go back and explore his post-TOKYO STORY work, and the first film on the list was EARLY SPRING. The title made me think of rebirth and renewal; the story revolves around a young salary man Shoji (one of many) who is experiencing marital difficulties with his wife. Having lost their child to sickness, barely scraping by on his salary, and realizing that the work he studied to do has no future, Shoji finds himself in an affair with an outgoing co-worker nicknamed 'Goldfish' (her eyes are really big). His wife begins to suspect something is going on which causes a great deal of tension and trouble for Shoji.

The film takes place in post-war Japan, and Ozu does not hesitate to pepper his filmic landscapes with subtle (and not-so-subtle) reminders of that fact: there are occasional signs that pop up with English on them; traditional clothing styles (worn mostly by the older generation) are contrasted with Western types of clothing choices (worn mostly by the newer generation)...the tensions between traditionalism (pre-war) and modernity (post-war) as well as generational differences, both commonplace to Ozu's films, are here front and center. The character of 'Goldfish' (played by Keiko Kishi) is irreverent and I believe symbolic of Western decadence throughout the film. Her flirtatiousness and mannerisms really stand out in an intrusive way. Generationally, the younger people cross paths with the older and everything seems somewhat out of whack; later in the film there is a powerful scene as Shoji sits and drinks at a friend’s bar on one end of the table, and at the other end is an elder salary man set to retire. The dialogue and commentary on the transformation to Japanese society, especially as a result of the war, is moving. The acting is superb throughout; there are a lot of characters and so multiple viewings might be in order (this is my second time seeing it).

Ozu’s storytelling and pace can be challenging to get through; this movie was 145 minutes and is purely character driven, I think the longest of his post-war films. Even with that being the case, the film is still worth watching. Shockingly there are a couple of short tracking shots in the film, something I never expected to see in something he directed. What stood out for me in this film was a visual marking post of sorts, something that was repeated three times. Early in the film, there is a scene where two salary men are staring out a window at the city streets below, talking about how great it was to take an early train to get to work before the rush, yet how un-unique they are as salary men. Later in the film, two women stare out a bathroom window and speak of how beautiful the day is, but how long the week is in the workplace. Late in the film, a man and a woman look out a window and express hope in the midst of their resignation. Hope mixed with disillusionment and resignation as the life cycle moves on – thematically speaking, I believe this is the core message of the film and where Ozu delivers the emotional punch. Ozu’s films are not happy films, but they are memorable because they are powerful.

[Paul MacLean]

There are some twists and turns towards the ending (which may or may not make sense, depending on whether or not you have the energy to think them through), but I thought Cruise was trying too hard at times.

One thing which did bug me is that the space capsule containing the astronauts somehow escaped being destroyed by "Tet", and then conveniently parachuted to Earth 60 years later at just the right time and place for Cruise to find it.

[Monterey Jack]

One thing which did bug me is that the space capsule containing the astronauts somehow escaped being destroyed by "Tet", and then conveniently parachuted to Earth 60 years later at just the right time and place for Cruise to find it.

SPOILER





I thought that the humans brought it down with the antenna array that Cruise found, specifically for the purpose of him finding it.

[AndyDursin]

Umm, yeah, HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET. lol

Keep the spoiler tags around your discussion please...good thing I glossed over what you guys wrote

[Monterey Jack]

I wrapped [spoiler]spoiler[/spoiler] around my text and nothing happened.

[AndyDursin]

I wrapped [spoiler]spoiler[/spoiler] around my text and nothing happened.

Yeah I don't think that works on this software -- what you did, just putting SPOILER up there in your text is fine. I appreciate it

[Paul MacLean]

Umm, yeah, HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET. lol

Keep the spoiler tags around your discussion please...good thing I glossed over what you guys wrote

Oops! Sorry Andy!

Of course in a some ways you HAVE seen the film since it is so derivative!

[AndyDursin]

LOL I'm sure. I'm going to wait for video at this point.

[Eric Paddon]

The Honeymoon Machine (1961) 6.7 of 10

-A recent Warner Archive purchase of mine turns out to be a surprisingly good lightweight MGM comedy of the early 60s, and the real surprise is seeing how good Steve McQueen is in a comedy role. When your only exposure to him over the years has been as an action hero or in a film like "The Sand Pebbles" it's nice to see he can pull the silliness off in this script and that helps to elevate the viewing experience overall. OTOH, his leading lady Brigid Bazlen, who was a terrible Salome in "King Of Kings" proves she isn't that good in a contemporary role either. Not surprising her film career didn't last.

[mkaroly]

LOL I'm sure. I'm going to wait for video at this point.

One of the measures of a "good" science fiction movie for me is that it makes me want to reflect and think of the implications, the story, characters, the "twists", etc. For OBLIVION, though, I did not want to put the time or energy into thinking about those things, especially the twists. It was entertaining for what it was, but nothing more for me. Thus the average grade...so personally I don't think you're missing anything by not going to see it in theaters. Save your money for STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS! Lol...

[AndyDursin]

From next week's column:

GREAT GATSBY (1974)
7/10

One of the major cinematic disappointments of its day, the 1974 adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s THE GREAT GATSBY is likely to be reassessed by viewers in lieu of the release of Baz Luhrmann’s upcoming, and obviously more flamboyant, version starring Leonardo DiCaprio that opens May 10th. The perfect way to do so is through Warner Home Video’s gorgeous new Blu-Ray presentation that, if nothing else, plays to the film’s visual strengths.

Directed in an apathetic manner by Jack Clayton – whose career ranged from highlights like “The Innocents” to several disappointments including “Something Wicked This Way Comes” – “The Great Gatsby” boasts a script by Francis Ford Coppola, who came into save the expensive Paramount/David Merrick production after Truman Capote’s prior adaptation was vetoed by the studio. The film cast Robert Redford as the enigmatic title character, Mia Farrow as Gatsby’s eternal flame – Daisy Buchanan, Bruce Dern as her husband Tom, and Sam Waterston as Nick Carraway, Daisy’s second cousin and a new arrival on the Long Island social scene circa 1925.

Carraway, who narrates the film and serves as the story’s social conscience, watches from a distance as the upper-crust of “West Egg” commits innumerable acts of selfishness, with Tom cheating on Daisy with the wife (Karen Black) of a local mechanic (Scott Wilson), and Daisy herself rekindling her lost love for the withdrawn Gatsby. As embodied by Redford, Gatsby is a tortured soul whose lavish parties are merely a facade for his emotional longing for Daisy’s love. His desire to recapture the past dooms his future, with writer Coppola occasionally foreshadowing the tragedy that eventually befalls the vapid characters of Fitzgerald’s novel.

Coppola has written that Clayton paid scant attention to his screenplay, but while there’s no question the film would’ve likely fared better with Coppola – at the time coming off the smash success of “The Godfather” – behind the lens, Clayton does capture enough of Coppola’s adaptation that the movie isn’t the total loss its reputation would lead you to believe. It’s true that the movie’s emotional aspect is detached from one end of the film to the other, and that the needed chemistry between Redford and Farrow never sparks (Farrow reportedly wrote that Redford’s constant interest in the Watergate scandal kept him glued to the TV set whenever the cameras weren’t rolling – something that may explain their lack of chemistry and Redford’s disinterested performance). Scenes linger that should’ve been tightened up while Clayton keeps too much of the film on an even-keeled, dramatic flatline, and familiar faces from Edward Herrmann to Howard Da Silva (who also appeared in “Gatsby”’s 1949 film version) appear in parts retained from the novel that don’t offer any payoff on-screen.

Yet “The Great Gatsby” still functions as an exquisitely good looking period film – a superficial romance that, despite its lack of emotional power, nevertheless manages to captivate for its sense of time and place. Making great use of the Newport, Rhode Island mansions like Rosecliff, Marble House and The Breakers (subbing for Long Island), Clayton and cinematographer Douglas Slocombe capture the gaudy heyday of the ‘20s in all its beauty and excess. And what more needs to be said about Nelson Riddle’s Oscar-winning soundtrack? Beautifully adapted from numerous standards as well as offering an effective, low-key dramatic underscore, Riddle’s work on “The Great Gatsby” is some of his finest. His use of George Gershwin’s “What I’ll Do,” weaving in and out of the score from the movie’s first frames, is heartbreakingly poignant, and gives the film a soul that its otherwise overly-placid tone lacks. (Here’s hoping someone releases Riddle’s score on CD at some point soon).

The movie’s visual appearance, as well as its soundtrack, are both greatly enhanced by Warner’s Blu-Ray presentation, which looks pleasingly natural with fine grain and detail present throughout (the details are so distinct you can easily see the old Jamestown [RI] Bridge in the movie’s opening minutes). This is a beautiful 1080p AVC encoded presentation and another home run for Warner, releasing their first new title from the Paramount Pictures vaults as part of a recent catalog distribution agreement between the two studios. On the audio end, the 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack is surprisingly robust with a pleasing stereophonic presence.

While those expecting “The Great Gatsby” to become the ‘70s equivalent of “Gone With Wind” were severely disappointed, the film is worthy of another look, and Warner’s Blu-Ray gives “Gatsby” a stellar presentation that adds to its visual and aural appeal.