Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Global Moderator
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by PaperThinWalls

  1. Yup, it did and (no surprise) it was a pretty weak premiere, too.
  2. I disliked every single character in Fear S1 except Strand whom I wouldn't doubt I'll end up disliking this season once he gets more screen time. I thought TWD was bad with their character decisions but Fear is on a whole different level. Another thing I dislike about the show is the way it looks. It is aesthetically UGLY. I'm glad they went in a different route than its more gritty, grainy companion show. But what they chose is so bland and nondescript. Its flat, digital appearance reminds me the way most commercials look nowadays.
  3. ^ All editions come with the extras-disc. The two exclusive extras are digital and not on the Blu-Ray. And the packaging is made of cheap cardboard and houses the discs in sleeves which makes the discs a pain in the ass to access.
  4. What a load of horse shit. I was worried they were going to pull off this nonsense and they did. The episode was like some of the matches at this year's WrestleMania apparently: superb until the shit ending.
  5. You can reason that Alexandria was stocked up with enough meds, so there wasn't a crucial need for them until now.
  6. They're well received... maybe a little less so for Out 1 due to its unconventional nature. But the general consensus for both is positive.
  7. Absolutely. So many directions it can go. I'm leaning one way right now but by the end of the next episode I may lean another way.
  8. No no, they're movies through and through. Shoah I believe is meant to be watched like any other movie. And Out 1 is episodic like a serial.
  9. Oh yeah I do. Unfortunately, they're all busy watching Logistics, which is 37 days long. Shoah is a documentary about the holocaust and I presume the length is due to the amount of time the interviews take. Out 1 is by a director named Jacques Rivette who was known for his unorthodox filmmaking methods and not being particularly interested in abiding to the rules of conventional cinema (such as film length). Out 1 though, isn't as excoriating as I made it out to be. On home video, it's a lot easier to take in because it's separated into multiple episodes, so it's like watching a TV show. I wasn't being totally serious, though. I'm mildly interested in Shoah. But Out 1 is something genuinely I want to see.
  10. All this talk about long-length films reminds me that I need to watch Shoah, which is slightly over 10 hours, and Out 1, which is almost 13 hours!
  11. Haha. Can't think of the score, either. Long movies (well the ones I've seen) don't bug me much. Intolerance, for example, is about three hours long and yet it goes by quickly for me because it's so engaging. But I can totally understand why some would be hesitant about devoting so much time to a movie they haven't seen yet.
  12. Well geez, that's a big thing to overlook. Film is a visual medium after all... BTW, l'm not a huge fan of the film either... just so you know. It's not a film I find myself rewatching very often but if there are people interested in seeing it, then I'll tell them to take a look simply for the achievements I mentioned above.
  13. Because it's a remarkable technical achievement of epic portions. The scope, the production design, the costumes, the 3-strip technicolor -- they're all well done. Some people probably like the performances and sentimentality, too.
  14. Did you watch Birth with tints? Tinting was very common back during the early-mid silent days. Tints were used for all kinds of stuff. There wasn't an exact code but generally they were used to provide, as you indicated, narrative information like the time of day (e.g. blue/green for night/darkness, amber/sepia for lightness) and to enhance the scenery/setting and mood (e.g. green for nature; red for fire or romance/passion/fiery). So Thief did that but so did many other movies. What makes the movie truly essential is the lavish visual imagery and special-effects like you stated. Edit: I knew this sounded familiar! We've talked about this already: http://caws.ws/forum/topic/445943-unpopular-movie-opinions/?p=10382345 lol
  15. Intolerance is the better Griffith film, so I chose that one. I'm not quite sure what you mean by The Thief of Bagdad's tinting being great. There's nothing extraordinary about it as far as I'm aware. Tinting was the norm back then; many films did it, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
  • Create New...