Searching for a new movie to watch this week? I hope you’re feeling lucky.
Loading ...New Releases
Former wedding crashers Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson reunite to invade Google headquarters in ‘The Internship‘. Trailers for the movie suggested that it’s little more than a two-hour product placement ad for the internet superpower. By all accounts from those who’ve seen it, the alleged comedy is a lazy, unfunny mess. Surely, you can do better than this.
‘Saw’ director James Wan has had a very busy and very successful last couple of years. In between his popular ‘Insidious’ chapters, Wan also had the biggest hit of his career with the haunted house thriller ‘The Conjuring‘, which is supposedly based on the exploits of the same paranormal investigators who inspired the original ‘Amityville Horror’. Although the film doesn’t appear to strike any new ground for the genre, both viewers and even critics praised its old-school approach to generating scares with atmosphere and suspense rather than over-relying on digital trickery.
As readers of this blog may remember, I wasn’t a fan of Nicolas Winding Refn’s overhyped, overrated ‘Drive’. Frankly, I thought it was a steaming pile of crap. The three dozen other people in the world who actually paid to see that movie in a theater disagreed with me on that, sometimes violently. Yet even the biggest fans of ‘Drive’ seem to have reached a unanimous conclusion that the director’s follow-up with star Ryan Gosling, called ‘Only God Forgives‘, is unwatchably awful. Perversely, that may actually give me a tiny inkling of desire to see this one. Just a tiny smidge, though. I doubt I’ll follow through on that.
Much more exciting for me is ‘Before Midnight‘, the latest sequel to the wonderful ‘Before Sunrise’ and ‘Before Sunset’. (I hesitate to call this a trilogy, because director Richard Linklater and writers/stars Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy have all said that they’re eager to do more of these every nine years.) I was unfortunately not able to catch this in the theater, but word-of-mouth is that this one is just as good as the prior two.
Another big hit from the indie scene this year was ‘The Way, Way Back‘, the coming-of-age drama from Nate Faxon and Jim Rash, Oscar-winning writers of ‘The Descendants’. (Yes, that’s the same Jim Rash who plays Dean Pelton on ‘Community’.) Less acclaimed or successful was the rom-com ‘I Give It a Year‘, starring Rose Byrne and Rafe Spall.
Catalog Titles
The story behind Shout! Factory’s ‘Bruce Lee: The Legacy Collection‘ box set has gotten very convoluted. The 11-disc package (containing four Blu-rays, four duplicate copies on DVD, three supplement DVDs and a book) was scheduled for release back in July, but was pulled at the last minute after word leaked that all of the Blu-rays contained upconverted standard-definition transfers of the four movies: ‘The Big Boss’, ‘Fist of Fury’, ‘The Way of the Dragon’ and ‘Game of Death’. At first, the studio denied these claims, but later admitted that the owners in Hong Kong had provided the wrong HD masters. The set was delayed in order to re-author the Blu-rays with true high-definition transfers. While that appears to have happened, word now is that the new transfers suffer serious coloring issues that, ironically, the upconverted copies didn’t. Sadly, this set appears to be a huge clusterfuck, and I have a hard time recommending that fans shell out $100 for it. It seems inevitable to me that Shout! Factory will remaster and reissue the films again in a couple of years.
One can hope for better treatment from the Criterion Collection’s ‘John Cassavetes: Five Films‘ box set. Then again, Cassavetes’ movies are so rough technically that it may be difficult to tell the difference between a well-mastered and poorly-mastered Blu-ray anyway. Despite his influence in shaping the American independent film scene, I’ve never been a huge fan of the actor-turned-director. I’ve always found his movies very alienating. However, it’s been so long since I’ve seen any of them that I feel I really ought to give them another shot. After all, Seymour Cassel is in most of these, and he’s pretty awesome.
Criterion’s other offering this week is the 1944 Gothic ghost story ‘The Uninvited‘, starring Ray Milland.
More Halloween treats await in ‘The Vincent Price Blu-ray Collection‘, which includes six of the star’s classic horrors: ‘The Pit and the Pendulum’, ‘The Masque of the Red Death’, ‘The Haunted Palace’, ‘The Fall of the House of Usher’, ‘The Abominable Dr. Phibes’ and ‘Witchfinder General’.
Television
If you’d like to catch up on a little TV this week, Warner has the third season of ‘Nikita‘ while E1 has a Complete Series box set of ‘Primeval: New World‘, which I understand to be a spin-off of the cheesy British dinosaur-hunting adventure drama ‘Primeval’.
Wider Is Better
Constant Image Height viewers may wish to take note that the following movies this week are presented in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio:
- ‘The Conjuring’
- ‘I Give It a Year’
- ‘The Internship’
- ‘Roulette’
- Bruce Lee Collection: ‘The Big Boss’ (a.k.a. ‘Fists of Fury’)
- Bruce Lee Collection: ‘Fist of Fury’ (a.k.a. ‘The Chinese Connection’)
- Bruce Lee Collection: ‘The Game of Death’
- Bruce Lee Collection: ‘The Way of the Dragon’
- Vincent Price Collection: ‘The Fall of the House of Usher
- Vincent Price Collection: ‘The Haunted Palace
- Vincent Price Collection: ‘The Masque of the Red Death’
- Vincent Price Collection: ‘The Pit and the Pendulum’
—
I’m definitely eager to see ‘Before Midnight’. I will also add the Vincent Price and John Cassavetes box sets, as well as ‘The Uninvited’, to my wish list. Will you pick up anything this week?
Timcharger
Josh, you wrote:
“By installing a 16:9 screen, you’re prioritizing the non-immersive content and displaying it larger than what should be the most immersive content.”
That is absolutely true, IF AND ONLY IF, my desired projection wall is very rectangular.
If I can perfectly fit in a the maximum screen size of Scope dimensions, but I choose a less wide 16X9 screen, then you are correct.
But if my limiting factor isn’t height, but my limiting factor is width… you’re wrong to think I’ve chosen screen sizes to MIS-PRIORITIZE immersive content.
This is critical thinking:
Does the fact that 16X9 gets projected bigger or smaller than 2.35 on the same screen, does that fact CHANGE how immersive your 2.35 experience is/was?
(Please re-read that above paragraph slowly with pauses for emphasis) 🙂
(I said please)
I think if this point gets through, it would make a ton of progress.
Because someone else drives their economy car faster than your sports car, does that CHANGE how sporty your sports car is?
—–
(Josh, feel free to delete this example below if it’s too risky)
This idea that the projection size of 16X9 content will be larger than 2.35 content on the same screen somehow WEAKENS the immersive 2.35 experience, this notion reminds me of the false argument that gay people shouldn’t get married because it WEAKENS the marriages of straight people.
(I wouldn’t be offended if you deleted this example. It’s actually an example of tolerance and critical thinking, but sadly it’s a controversial subject.)
Josh Zyber
AuthorIf you watch TV shows on the same screen that you watch movies, and day-to-day those TV shows (even banal sitcoms and Reality programs) are displayed larger than the movies, then yes, you have weakened the immersiveness of the movies. No matter how large you display the movie, sitcoms and Reality shows will always be larger. By virtue of the fact that you’re watching both, the movies will seem smaller, less immersive and less involving in the direct comparison that you’ve set for yourself.
Especially if you tend to watch more TV on a daily basis than movies, you will condition yourself to expect the size of those TV shows to be the new “average,” the base standard at which your viewing starts. Switching then to a scope movie is automatically a reduction in size and impact, and therefore a disappointment. You’ll find yourself having difficulty getting wrapped up in the experience of Lord of the Rings if it can’t even engage your senses to the same degree that Modern Family does.
I take your point about the gay marriage argument (and I likewise don’t want to go too far with this), but that’s not a valid comparison. Typically, someone who is married in one form of relationship will not also be married in the other form of relationship at the same time, such that one would weaken the experience of the other. On the other hand, you will watch both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 content on the same screen, back to back.
Timcharger
Alright, we’ll disagree here.
Your words:
“Switching then to a scope movie is automatically a reduction in size and impact, and therefore a disappointment. You’ll find yourself having difficulty getting wrapped up in the experience of Lord of the Rings if it can’t even engage your senses to the same degree that Modern Family does.”
I’ll just say that you really shouldn’t feel that way. That’s not an ideal way to live life.
“difficulty to engage your senses to the same degree”???
That’s like saying, you only want to eat at McDonalds instead of 3-star-Michelin restaurants, so that your wife’s cooking will engage and immerse your taste buds to a satisfactory degree.
—–
And let’s be realistic, you don’t fire up your projector everyday for most 16X9 TV shows. You have a smaller HDTV for that. You fire it up for 16X9 shows like Game of Thrones.
Before you watch a Scope film on your Scope screen, do you first watch 10 minutes of a less wide 16X9 film so that it tricks your senses into maximum immersion sensory mode?! And you “switch over immediately”?
—–
Yes, eating at 3 Star Michelin restaurants EVERYDAY would affect my reaction to my wife’s cooking. But that’s not realistic is it?
I would still go at every affordable opportunity to eat at fine restaurants. I wouldn’t say: “never, never, never in a billion years” would I eat at fine restaurants because it will diminish my home cooking experience.
—–
What happens when you do go an Imax 16X9 screening? When you come home, do you tell your Scope screen that you don’t love her anymore? She can’t immerse you the way she used to?
🙂
Josh Zyber
AuthorTim, what you are (perhaps inadvertently) suggesting here is that TV shows like Modern Family are the Michelin 3-star restaurant meals, while feature films are the McDonald’s fare. If that’s how you feel, it’s no wonder that you would want to prioritize the size of the TV shows above all else.
“Before you watch a Scope film on your Scope screen, do you first watch 10 minutes of a less wide 16X9 film so that it tricks your senses into maximum immersion sensory mode?! And you ‘switch over immediately’?”
If you put in a Blu-ray and see large letterbox bars filling in the unused space above and below the picture, that alone will provide the visual cue and a constant reminder that your movie size has been artificially reduced.
Timcharger
Yes, Josh, that’s exactly what I’m saying: Modern Family, Mike & Molly, 2 Broke Girls, the Bachelor, those all are 3 star Michelin restaurants.
And on my HDTV, I always watch them first before immediately switching over to Lord of the Rings, so those pesky Hobbits look more tiny and even less immersive.
And when I go to fine restaurants, I always save a last bite to take home. And before my wife serves me her favorite dish, I eat that last bite from the 3-star-Michelin restaurant, so that my wife’s cooking “can’t engage me to any degree”.
—–
I think you know exactly what I mean.
If I had the largest screen I could fit in on my wall and it was a 16X9 screen, and if I’m watching a 2.35 Scope film, the knowledge that IF-I-WAS-WATCHING-A-16X9-FILM-IT-WOULD-PROJECT-LARGER, that knowledge SHOULD NOT diminish my immersive 2.35 viewing experience. It really shouldn’t.
This is a philosophic, outlook-in-life issue. Josh, I don’t believe that you live your life that way. (Or I hope that you don’t live your life that way.)
—–
Alright Josh, I think we understand each other’s position on this.
Josh Zyber
AuthorYes, Tim, this is a philosophical debate we’re having here. You may think it’s ridiculous, but the way that their movies should be presented is something that filmmakers put a lot of thought into when choosing how to photograph them. You can choose not to care about this if you don’t want to, but the relative sizes of two images presented on the same screen will affect your interest and engagement with each, regardless of whether you watch them immediately back-to-back or not. By displaying 1.85:1 movies or 16:9 TV content as the largest possible image, you have made a decision that those are more important to you and everything else is inferior.
Some of us care very much about this issue when designing our home theaters.
Timcharger
“If you put in a Blu-ray and see large letterbox bars filling in the unused space above and below the picture, that alone will provide the visual cue and a constant reminder that your movie size has been artificially reduced.”
God no!!! Not those black bars! They remind me that this 2.35 viewing experience on this 16 foot screen will be crap! I can’t focus of the film; the black bars will constantly remind me how less immersive my experience is. Life isn’t worth living!
—–
You don’t live your life that way, Josh.
freakyguy666
Are you seriously arguing about black bars? I suppose all those millions of viewers AND TOP FILMMAKERS who PREFER to watch their movies on the IMAX Screen must be idiots given that there are massive black bars above and below their 1.90 presentations–which they love.
Timcharger
Josh, with your posting privileges, you were able to insert comments out of sequence, but I got to see it now.
—–
“Yes, Tim, this is a philosophical debate we’re having here.”
Yes, it is philosophy. But the philosophical question ISN’T this:
“that filmmakers put a lot of thought into when choosing how to photograph them.”
—–
I haven’t changed the dimensions of how the filmmakers photograph them. A photographer doesn’t take pictures and say that photo A of a Superbowl touchdown catch must be projected larger than photo B of a cheerleader. If I cropped and zoomed the cheerleader’s photo on her breasts, then yes, I’ve violated the photographer’s “thought of how to photograph them.” But if I didn’t alter, but only projected Photo B larger than Photo A, I’ve committed no artistic offense. Perhaps I’m offensive in being crude, but the photographer has no domain in determining how large I view his photographs relative to his other photographs.
—–
The philosophical question is about the nature of knowledge and experience. Should the knowledge of a possible different parallel world where Josh-Beta is currently watching 1.85 film on a 16X9 16-foot screen, while Josh-Alpha is also currently watching a 2.35 film on a 16X9 16-foot screen. Does Josh-Alpha knowing that there might be a Josh-Beta out there, does that knowledge diminish the current, immediate immersive experience Josh-Alfa is getting watching a Scope film projected on his giant 16 foot screen?
Instead of enjoying his gigantic Scope projection, Josh-Alpha is distracted and worried about all the other Josh-infinitys. Because there is a Josh-Delta with a 16X11 screen, and in his world his 16X11 film is even larger than Josh-Alpha’s Scope projection. Josh-Gamma has a 16X12 screen, and so on… And Josh-Zeta has a home IMAX screen.
(Josh-Alpha hopes he never meets Josh-Zeta on the forums, because J-Zeta would respond: “Why yes, Josh-Alpha, I DO HAVE an Imax Home Theater.”)
—–
You wrote:
“The relative sizes of two images presented on the same screen will affect your interest and engagement with each.”
Josh, at the movieplex, you’re in the Imax #1 theater and you’re watching a 2.35 film. Is your “interest and engagement” lower, because you have knowledge that on the Imax #2 (same-size screen) theater, there is a 1.85 film being projected larger than your 2.35 film?
When writing the review to that 2.35 film, you’ll give it lower video scores, because your “interest and engagement” was lower?
Josh Zyber
AuthorThere are standards for theatrical projection. Aside from IMAX (still a tiny minority), most theaters have screens in Constant Image Height format. This is a factor that filmmakers take into consideration when deciding how to photograph their movies. Those who use scope format do so specifically because they want those movies projected larger than 1.85:1, to be bigger and more immersive in comparison, not smaller and less immersive. That’s the whole point of using scope.
Can you not recognize this? Why do you think that the directors of big epic blockbuster movies overwhelmingly choose to photograph those movies in scope? Do you think that’s a coincidence? Do you think the director of a $200 million sci-fi or fantasy epic chooses scope expecting it to be displayed smaller than Meet the Fockers? Do you have no concept at all of why a director would choose one aspect ratio over another?
Your argument that different theaters have different size screens is a non-starter. We’re not talking about different theaters. We’re talking about how two movies are projected on the same theater screen. You don’t have two screens in your home theater. You have one screen that you watch all content on. Whether there’s another screen somewhere out there in the world larger than yours is not something you have any control over and is irrelevant to how you set up and watch content in your own home theater.
By installing a 16:9 screen, you have decided that movies like Meet the Fockers and TV shows like Teen Mom are more important and deserve preferential treatment over Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. They will always be bigger. They will always be more immersive. They will always seem more impressive.
Yes, there are IMAX theaters now. IMAX is even bigger than scope. A handful of directors have chosen to photograph movies in narrower ratios to benefit IMAX. A handful – as in, you can count them on one hand. A handful of those versus the tens of thousands of other movies made in the 120+ year history of cinema. And also versus how the majority of other movies continue to be made today, right at this very moment.
Further, you will not see Meet the Fockers or TV shows on an IMAX screen. Those don’t play in IMAX theaters. Only a couple dozen movies a year play in IMAX, and they are selective in what type of content gets the IMAX treatment. Your home theater is not that selective. If you put in a 16:9 screen, everything plays on that screen – epic or banal – good, bad or indifferent. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings will always be smaller than Meet the Fockers and Teen Mom. Always.
You can say, “But I don’t care whether one thing is bigger than another thing. I’m special and I don’t think that way. I can completely separate them in my mind.” Good for you. I don’t buy that for even a nanosecond, but good luck trying to convince yourself that you actually believe it the next time you put in Blade Runner or Raiders of the Lost Ark and your heart sinks because you realize that the episode of Pawn Stars you flipped past on TV the other day was so much more immersive.
Freakyguy666
JZ said, “Those who use scope format do so specifically because they want those movies projected larger than 1.85:1, to be bigger and more immersive in comparison, not smaller and less immersive. That’s the whole point of using scope.”
If that’s the case, then you must believe the directors of Jurassic Park, E.T., The Avengers, Avatar, et al, all wanted their movies to be LESS immersive than the comedies The Heat and The Internship. You are hilarious!
Josh Zyber
AuthorAgain with the same few examples, Freaky. Can you honestly not think of any others? What a weak argument you have that you’re completely incapable of naming any other examples to make your case. Geezus, I’m so tired of you trotting out the same miniscule selection of titles that I’m going to toss you Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland just so you have something different to say next time. I hope you can appreciate my generosity.
That still doesn’t change the fact that most of these type of movies are 2.35:1. Most. Do you not understand the concept of “most”? Or do you literally only ever watch Jurassic Park, E.T., The Avengers and Avatar in your home theater over and over and over and over again, and nothing else?
“What day of the week is it? It’s Saturday? Oh, goodie, it’s E.T. day! I can’t wait until Thursday when it’s E.T. day again next!!”
Freakyguy666
Another point that needs to be made is that immersion is not simply a function of image size, but also picture quality and sound, as well as the content itself! Isn’t it disingenuous to say that watching a shitty show on a large screen will automatically render Lord of the Rings “less immersive”? I for one don’t watch crappy tv shows on my 14′ screen because a) I’m not into shitty shows like JZ apparently is, b) most Reality tv programs would look like crap on that size and that is what ipads iphones and the other 12 flat panel screens throughout my home could be used for–IF I were so inclined to watch said crappy shows a la JZ.
Timcharger
Josh, you wrote:
“Your argument that different theaters have different size screens is a non-starter. We’re not talking about different theaters. We’re talking about how two movies are projected on the same theater screen.”
No, please re-read my examples. If the example isn’t on the same screen, then it is on a same size screen.
Josh-Alpha and Josh-Beta have the same size screen.
Imax #1 and Imax #2 have the same size screen.
The philosophical question remains:
Why should Josh-Alpha or Josh-the-reviewer feel his Scope experience is less immersive if there is a bigger experience occuring in the next parallel world or in the next theater?
Here let me paste them for you, so you don’t have to hunt:
—–
The philosophical question is about the nature of knowledge and experience. Should the knowledge of a possible different parallel world where Josh-Beta is currently watching 1.85 film on a 16X9 16-foot screen, while Josh-Alpha is also currently watching a 2.35 film on a 16X9 16-foot screen. Does Josh-Alpha knowing that there might be a Josh-Beta out there, does that knowledge diminish the current, immediate immersive experience Josh-Alfa is getting watching a Scope film projected on his giant 16 foot screen?
—–
Josh, at the movieplex, you’re in the Imax #1 theater and you’re watching a 2.35 film. Is your “interest and engagement” lower, because you have knowledge that on the Imax #2 (same-size screen) theater, there is a 1.85 film being projected larger than your 2.35 film?
When writing the review to that 2.35 film, you’ll give it lower video scores, because your “interest and engagement” was lower?
—–
Josh, when you use examples of Meet the Fockers projection larger than Lord of the Rings, you make it sound like I’m watching Meet the Fockers on a 16 foot screen and Lord of the Rings on a 6 inch tablet.
I would tell Peter Jackson, hey, I’m watching your film on my 16 foot screen. Join me, I got plenty of popcorn. And if Peter has Josh’s notions of scope heirarchy and Peter sees that I have on my media shelf a blu-ray of Meet the Fockers, according to you Josh, Peter should then spit in my popcorn?! Peter would storm out of my home theater room shaking his head because he has 16X9-projection-size-envy???
Josh, you want to THROTTLE the size of 16X9 projection just for the sake THAT’S THE WAY IT SUPPOSED TO BE. I used the term THROTTLE because cell phone companies CAN provide faster speeds, but THROTTLE it for some customers due to various reasons. So even if it possible for you to project 16X9 larger, you won’t do it.
It’s NOT my goal to project 16X9 larger than Scope. It’s a by-product due to the dimensions my of wall and my desire for the biggest picture. You want Scope larger BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY, not by making Scope larger, but by making 16X9 smaller even if you have the wall space to make a bigger 16X9 picture.
Here’s a weird thing:
You do also want a giant 16X9 picture, as long as it can’t be bigger than your Scope picture, because that would make you unable to get it up, stay interested, engaged to any degree, with your Scope image.
—–
Going back to the philosophical question of knowledge altering your experience. There is a correct answer to this question. You can easily guess what the correct answer is.
But if you still FEEL that way. FEEL that your Scope experience is less amazing on that giant screen than a 16X9 experience on the same size giant screen in a parallel world or in the next theater, if you still FEEL that way, Josh…
Then it isn’t a philosophical discussion anymore. It’s a psychological discussion. And I can’t help you with that.
Josh Zyber
AuthorWhatever, Tim. Do what you want to do. I’ve explained my side of this argument enough. If you believe that TV shows and 1.85:1 movies are more important and deserve to be displayed larger on your screen than scope movies, go ahead and watch them that way. It was never my intent to stop you from doing what you like.
However, I do not feel that way. In my theater, scope movies take precendence. When I watch The Bridge on the River Kwai, I want it to expand in breadth and impact so that it’s much larger than, say, Clerks. I don’t care whether the wall has extra height available for Clerks or not. That’s totally irrelevant to my concerns. Clerks will never merit being displayed larger than The Bridge on the River Kwai, under any circumstances. Your mileage may vary.
Timcharger
Bridge on the River Kwai isn’t less amazing…
Lord of the Rings isn’t less amazing…
(Insert your favorite 2.35 film) isn’t less amazing…
It’s actually an insult to those films that if a 16X9 film is projected larger than them on the same-size screen, they are lesser for it?!
—–
Here I was able to get Bridge to talk…
Go ahead Bridge, say something, Josh is listening.
Bridge: Josh? Josh, it’s me Bridge on the River Kwai. Yeah, you know. You watch me at least every couple years. Yeah, I appreciate you buying me. Oh, and last year, when there was a crack in my keepcase, I really thank you for replacing it with a new keepcase. And you always handle me with so much care. No fingerprints on me at all, thanks.
Timcharger: Bridge, go ahead, tell Josh, tell him what you were telling me earlier.
Bridge: Josh, hey; I’m okay. I don’t have a problem if you projected another film larger than me. I’m a big boy. If another film has taller dimensions or wider dimensions, it don’t matter to me. I know who I am. And I like my dimensions just fine. If your wall has the space for it, and you want to watch that HBO Game of Thrones show larger than me, no big deal. I heard it was great show; I’ll join you Josh. This notion of some films not meriting it. That they don’t merit being projected larger than me. Josh, thank you. Thank you for thinking that helps me. But it doesn’t help me in any way. I don’t need any help. But still, I thank you for thinking that would help me. Josh, my good, old friend, let’s fire up Game of Thones and watch that together in the largest presentation possible.
—–
You’re welcome, Josh.
Timcharger
Bridge: Oh Josh, I spoke with Larry. Larry of Arabia. All the others, too. They all agree. We all feel the same way. Hey if there’s room, Josh? Larry would like to watch Game of Thrones too on the largest presentation possible.
Josh Zyber
AuthorWe’re done here.