The ones with the Starz logo on them (you can see it on the lower right hand corner of the movie's pic) are obviously cable-formatted transfers. I would avoid those.

But, there are a lot of good looking transfers on Netflix. Many Universal titles are HD. Many others are at least 16:9 and look as good as DVD. Sounds like you're just running into a few bad ones.

The HD streaming is designated as such too.

Pretty much the only things I watch via streaming through Netflix are half-hour TV shows. I'm not gonna watch a two-hour movie on a laptop screen, and I don't have the slightest idea of how to get them on my TV.

Monterey Jack wrote:Pretty much the only things I watch via streaming through Netflix are half-hour TV shows. I'm not gonna watch a two-hour movie on a laptop screen, and I don't have the slightest idea of how to get them on my TV.

Blu-Ray players, Roku/WDTV Live boxes, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii -- plenty of options everywhere these days for that. I believe some TV's now have the ability inside them too (my Panasonic streams Amazon video on demand).

The thing is...I'm an idiot. A collosal idiot. I'd need someone to hold my hand through the entire process, and I'd still probably fudge it up.

A CHRISTMAS STORY - 10/10

This movie never ceases to amaze me in terms of how well it's held up over the years, and unlike some other "holiday institutions" like It's a Wonderful Life (not one of my favorites), I think it's a perennial that warrants its rep.

I also confess that my family was ahead of the curve on this film. My parents took me to see it in November of 1983 -- when the movie failed to muster much commercial business, and was out of theaters before Christmas time thanks to a poor marketing campaign (just watch the theatrical trailer, which is horrible!). It was re-released by MGM the next year but really took off on VHS in 1985 or '86...I remember renting the tape and showing it to my aunt and uncle and my 10 cousins, all of whom laughed themselves crazy.

Everything about this movie from its details, sense of time and place, and the humor feels just right. As the years have gone on I've appreciated the performances of Darren McGavin and Melinda Dillon all the more; funny when you see this movie as a kid you identify with Ralphie, but the older you get, the more you understand and savor McGavin's performance and reaction to what's going on around him. He's absolutely brilliant in this movie, and thank God that MGM didn't have the budget to afford Jack Nicholson who allegedly expressed interest (talk about being wrong).

At any rate, there always seems to be something to savor in this film. What a shame Bob Clark died in a car accident caused by a drunk driver (and illegal immigrant) that also caused the death of his son (just incomprehensible he only received a six year sentence as well)...this film remains a tribute to his memory.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader -- in glorious 2-D!

Much better than Prince Caspian. It's a bit slow in places, and the set-up (concerning why they are on the voyage) isn't as clear as it could be, but it is quite a good adventure, with some imaginative sequences (particularly the subplot of the dragon). Lewis' allegorical angle is preserved intact but not in a way that hits one over the head.

The effects are complex and epic, and a lot of work obviously went into them...yet, impressive as they are, after LOTR, the Star Wars prequels, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, et al, big effects sequences are starting to feel like more of the same old thing. I'd like to see a fantasy film one of these days that harkens back to movies that didn't lean so heavily on opticals (like The Wizard of Oz, Excalibur or Legend), though I wonder if anyone would watch a film that isn't 75% CGI (and in 3-D).

Anyway, the film was nicely photographed by Dante Spinotti -- who actually allows some color onto the screen (which makes a refreshing change from the recent Harry Potter movies), though there was an undue amount of hand-held camerawork.

David Arnold's score was excellent -- maybe not in league with Stargate, but far and away superior to most anything I've heard in the past five years, and much better than Harry Gregson-Williams pervious scores (though Arnold does quote HGW's Narnia theme in places).

SUPERFLY (1972) - 8/10. Compelling film about a cocaine dealer who wants to make one last score and then get out of the business. Unlike SHAFT, this film seemed to be a bit mroe "sinster" and hard-edged in dealing with its subject matter. The acting was pretty decent, and I was pleasantly surprised by the ending. The movie does NOT glorify drug use and "the life", and neither do Mayfield's songs. Compare this movie to a lot of today's music and marketing that glorifies "pimping" and the things SUPERFLY criticizes....good film.

CINDERELLA LIBERTY (1973) - 7/10. I'm kind of tired with "hooker with a heart of gold" stories, but this film surprised me. It was less about Baggs and Maggie and more about Baggs and Doug. I think Williams' score really captured the emotional moments of the film well, and I was really surprised by Caan's performance as I have never seen him in an understated role like that before. There are some good moments of humor in the film, so it never gets too heavy. While I found the ending a bit improbable (to say the least), the acting was good all around and this is the third Rydell film that I have been very entertained by. It's not as good as THE REIVERS or THE COWBOYS, but it's not bad either.

KRULL - 2/10. If I had seen this as a kid I probably would have a nostalgic liking for it and my rating would be higher. I had never seen KRULL until yesterday, and while I thought the special effects weren't all that bad it just seemed incredibly flat and uninspired. The characters were very one dimensional and not all that exciting, the drama was bad, the action was goofy, the final battle was silly, and Ergo was basically a precursor to Jar-Jar Binks. While I am not a fan of James Horner, there were a few inspired moments in the score, but I don't really blame him for putting so much music in the film because it needed something to make it better. The fire mare sequences worked well with his music. At least I can say I finally saw it, but ultimately I found it to be a really bad film.

mkaroly wrote:KRULL - 2/10. If I had seen this as a kid I probably would have a nostalgic liking for it and my rating would be higher.

I did see it as a kid -- and didn't think much of it. But it has really grown on me over the years. It's much better than Willow, Dragonheart or Eregon, and while its script obviously isn't JRR Tolkien, I find it a better executed and more aesthetically pleasing (and certainly more entertaining) film than the LOTRs.

Krull is Krapp. Smokin' James Horner score, but as a movie, it's pretty rank.

Monterey Jack wrote:Krull is Krapp. Smokin' James Horner score, but as a movie, it's pretty rank.

But it's still better than Avatar or Inception!

Monterey Jack wrote:Krull is Krapp. Smokin' James Horner score, but as a movie, it's pretty rank.

I'll watch KRULL over garbage like AVATAR any day.

But we've already had this discussion.

AndyDursin wrote: I'll watch KRULL over garbage like AVATAR any day.

LOL nope! I think you're the one who deserves the Sutherland

Paul MacLean wrote:
But it's still better than Avatar or Inception!

You think Krull is better than Inception? Wow, I don't see that at all. Different strokes for different folks and all that I guess.


There has to be a HEAVY sentimental bias going here. That's cool. I can bring up some scores and movies that I have my own sentimental biases about and probably have you guys laughing and rolling your eyes as well.




Two completely different movies and genres here as well but I'm sorry I just can't go with you on that at all. I can't even begin to conceive and wrap my brain around the concept of Krull being a better movie than Inception.



I just watched Inception for the first time last night on Blu (I never go to the theater) and was blown away by it. Best movie I've seen in several years easily. I can't wait to watch it again soon. I went into it fresh because I'm pretty good about avoiding spoilers.

The only area I'll say Krull is better than Inception is the score. Easily.

My two cents anyways.

It's not entirely nostalgia.

I'm not a fan of Inception either for reasons I've outlined. Did nothing for me at all really outside of providing some impressive visuals.

As a critic you can't live your life comparing every film you've seen, one to another. What you do is take each film for what it is, what it's trying to do, and review it on its own merits. Otherwise you'd never compare AMADEUS with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, or a Merchant Ivory film with ARMY OF DARKNESS, on and on.

KRULL and INCEPTION are totally different films, each trying to accomplish something on their own terms. For reasons we've discussed before and I don't want to rehash, I just find KRULL more successful in what it is trying to do than some other movies, and that includes Inception and what it's trying to do. They're not attempting the same "degree of difficulty" as it were, but you don't give out more points to a movie that you might find flawed simply because it's got supposedly "higher-minded" concepts in it.