Posted 20 March 2008 - 01:37 AM
Saw this trailer moments ago and loved it. It premiered at Toronto film fest in 2006 and for some reason never released. Its having a limited release in May 2008 apparently. I love the production design and photography... and believe it or not... when I saw Tarsem Singh's "The Cell" in theaters I enjoyed it a lot. I'm stoked.
Posted 20 March 2008 - 01:59 AM
Posted 14 May 2008 - 11:06 AM
Posted 14 May 2008 - 02:21 PM
Posted 15 May 2008 - 06:46 AM
Anyone know any tech specs? Weird how such big names attached (above the line wise) and is only getting a limited and late release.
Posted 15 May 2008 - 10:57 AM
Posted 16 May 2008 - 11:06 AM
At the movies makes me laugh, a lot.
Apparently Harold and Kumar didn?t live up to their expectations either. lol
The thought of a critic even HAVING expectations for it is a riot.
When a low budget stoner flick with cheap laughs and no real story for the 2nd time has promised in exchange for ones money a low budget stoner flick with cheap laughs and no real story ? and again delivered it ?but that isn?t the crux, and instead unfulfilled critical expectations in the absence of a franchise compromising, play it safe sequel is, then it sounds like trying to use quantum physics to change a light bulb, and bothering me for 2 minutes with how the dark leaves something to be desired.
One of the ATM guys chose perhaps the only scene in the movie (Harold & Kumar) that nothing controversial or low brow happened (Actually almost NOTHING happened in that scene period.), as the scene he found most noteworthy.
?I liked the part where nothing really happened? kind of says it all.
IF The Fall?s story pans out to be a bit too ambitious for its own good, or even far too ambitious for it?s own good, I?ll still see it, because willfully ?wasting? my money on the story OF someone trying like hell and failing beautifully is an infinitely more satisfying bet than gambling it on a paint by numbers hype-mugging perpetrated by way of someone?s expectations being met.
Posted 27 May 2008 - 05:31 PM
I enjoyed it very, very much. One of the first films in a while where I really thought "Wow, that director really had immense vision, a lot of it helped shape the visuals as well." Normally I'll attribute a lot of that to the DP, but Tarsem seemed to do a lot of pre-pro before hand. Very cool.
Posted 30 May 2008 - 10:33 PM
Posted 31 May 2008 - 11:42 AM
Posted 11 June 2008 - 02:51 AM
About the look: the screening I went to was unfortunately very poor. The projector lamp was very dark, probably near the end of its life. I guess I'm lucky it didn't explode during my screening! So it was hard to judge the lighting as it all seemed to be very contrasty with not enough fill light, to the extent that it was often hard to see the actors' eyes in some of the important low-key hospital scenes. Not that I'm against the "Gordon Willis" approach to cinematography at all (I love low-key lighting and have indulged in it too deeply at times!), but I don't think I was seeing the images as the DP intended. The projector's masking was a bit off as well, chopping off the bottom of the 1.85 frame. Since a lot of the compositions utilize the bottom edge of the frame, this created some awkwardly cropped frames that I'm sure were not intended by the filmmakers.
The film also did not look very sharp. The end credits suggest that the film was went through a 4K DI, though they don't specify whether the negative was only scanned at 4K then down-res'd to 2K for color correction, or whether the film was posted at 4K all the way through. The AC article on the film does not specify either. I would have expected the film to look sharper if it was the latter, since a lot of the film was shot on slow stock in full sunlight with Ultra Primes which should have rendered a very clean, sharp, fine-grained look. The blacks were certainly rich enough to suggest the neg got a full exposure. I would guess that they did not output multiple INs for the release prints but instead went through the IP/dupe neg/release print stages, which is disappointing given the extremely visual nature of the film. Or maybe I just saw a bad print. In any case, I'm sure the film will look much better on DVD and Blu-Ray (at least it'll be framed properly).
There was one wonderful day-for-night sequence on a desert island that I thought was pitch perfect cinematography. They shot it in direct overhead sunlight, timed it cool and slightly desaturated (i wonder if they used a DFN filter or just did it all in the DI), and did a sky replacement. Anyway, I really enjoyed this film and only hope more people get to see it under better circumstances than I did.
Posted 17 June 2008 - 04:03 PM
i used to live 3 minutes from universal studios orlando, and was spoiled by that theatre...and the 1am sprint through the empty parking garage after the movies...