Cinema - Comments by Twistin

Cinema - Comments by Twistin

« Member Page

Page 2 of 3 : Previous : Next :

Member	Item		Review/Comment
Twistin 21st Feb 2021		Cinema The Monuments Men (2014) (2014)	Why would black bars be needed on a title screen? They only exist because 16:9 screens are 1.78:1 and thus a 2.35:1 display has the bars due to screen size - not intended as part of the original (theatrical) screen.
Twistin 30th Dec 2020		Cinema Dirty Weekend (1993)	I always liked Michael Winner's 60s and especially 70s output, but Death Wish just left a bad taste in my mouth. Probably due to the savage abuse of Mrs. Muir by the home invasion thugs.
Twistin 13th Dec 2020		Cinema Despicable Me (2010) (2010)	Maybe the discussion would be better suited to the forums where it will not be outdated after any such changes are made, plus will have better visibility for the moderation team. Also, correction suggestions have better success when using the Make Correction link than in the comments, I have found, probably because it goes straight to the mod team rather than the entire 45worlds members. Just a suggestion...
Twistin 6th Sep 2020		Cinema Santa And The Ice Cream Bunny (1972) (1972)	Quibbling. It's like a metalhead pointing out that a song you referenced as death metal is actually melodic death-mo-core. Or in simpler terms, calling a movie a family film rather than a children's film.The point is the neighborhood, not the street address. And I didn't even call the two noted films porno, just that Mahon was responsible for them.
Twistin 24th Jul 2020		Cinema Indestructible Man (1956) (1956)	"replacing film posted by jaimeeduardo, no longer available....[ Hmmm, maybe he edited the post since your comment, but it seems to be working now. Or maybe it's blocked in your country? I visited the Latest Videos link from the Cinema front page yesterday and saw a lot of dead links from no-longer-existing YouTube accounts. What is the default action on these, to just leave them be or add them to an already turgid Corrections queue?
Twistin 23rd Jul 2020		Cinema Сталинградская битва, вторая серия (The Battle Of Stalingrad, Part II) (1949) (1949)	[YouTube Video]
Twistin 22nd Jul 2020		Cinema Derby Day (1952) (1952)	No prob. Would be nice if there was a field to add such details. We are able to do this with the cast since we can tack that stuff on after the character name without affecting the Person. Maybe in a future upgrade? Mod update Writer information edited - any additional demarcation info (eg, additional dialogue) can be included in notes.
Twistin 22nd Jul 2020		Cinema The Alley Tramp (1968) (1968)	So bad, it's good.
Twistin 21st Jul 2020		Cinema Derby Day (1952) (1952)	Whenever Person credits are added to the database with extra info in their names, ie... Arthur Austen (original story) John Baines (screenplay) Monckton Hoffe (additional dialogue) Alan Melville (additional dialogue) ...those extra details (ie, (original story), (screenplay), (additional dialogue)) are added as part of the person's name and results in a new Person added to the database, rather than that credit being added to the proper person's page. The Name field should be used only for Names, not added details.
Twistin 18th Jul 2020		Cinema What To Do On A Date (1951) (1951)	Hopelessly inane and corny but lots of (unintentional) laughs.
Twistin 5th May 2020		Cinema Keep Off The Grass (1970) (1970)	[YouTube Video]
Twistin 1st Mar 2020		Cinema A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood (2019) (2019)	I realize that, I was simply correcting your mention of the TV show name... Quote: True story of the journalist who interviewed Mister Rogers about his "Beautiful Neighborhood" TV Serie It's all good. :-)
Twistin 24th Feb 2020		Cinema A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood (2019) (2019)	The show was actually called, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.
Twistin 13th Sep 2019		Cinema Mommie Dearest (1981) (1981)	This is so pedantic I can hardly believe such a debate is even in play. I do wish a mod or admin would just step in and say yay or nay to calling any film with children or families as a "theme" a part of this genre. It will be a first as far as I am aware, but if "Mommie Dearest" can exist under this definition, what crazy stretch will be next... Quote: ...so the 'Family' genre would only be used when significant (in the opinion of the data creator). I doubt seriously the "data creator"'s opinion is the final word. You're really splitting a lot of hairs; the purpose of a genre is to give the user an idea of the type of film it is, not the content, which is why there is no dog or cat genres.
Twistin 12th Sep 2019		Cinema Mommie Dearest (1981) (1981)	Quote: 'Mommie Dearest' is one of the those films really focusing on children and family relationships. As a genre heading, 'Children & Family' is appropriate here. Also, it's a sly reminder of the film's content. By that rationale, The Omen and The Exorcist would also qualify for the genre, Children & Family, right? Probably irrelevant, since I'm guessing no one else cares...
Twistin 8th Sep 2019		Cinema Mommie Dearest (1981) (1981)	Regardless of the nature of the words used for this genre heading and their explicit definition(s), calling a film such as this Children & Family suggests the content is for Children & Family, which is the generally accepted definition (ie, in video store sections). By the same measure, a "road movie" does mean any movie that takes place on or focuses on a road. There are broader implications than strict definitions of words used.
Twistin 3rd Sep 2019		Cinema Mommie Dearest (1981) (1981)	Genre: Children & Family? Seriously?
Twistin 11th Jun 2019		Cinema That Darn Cat! (1965) (1965)	Um, this film is a thriller?!? Really?
Twistin 11th Jun 2019		Cinema Inherit The Wind (1960) (1960)	It's also historically inaccurate.
Twistin 21st Aug 2016		Cinema Those Redheads From Seattle (1953) (1953)	During my many years as a projectionist, when I would have to remove the aperture plate during a running 1.37:1 film to, for example, remove dust that is projecting onto the screen, I was able to see additional information on the top and bottom, displaying onto the curtains (and I could also see the sound strip on the left side curtain, as well). In those days, I really was not concerned with aspect ratios and just brushed it off as an anomaly that I couldn't be bothered with (I was young...) I also noticed this during a bad splice that would cause the film to go out of frame. The prints with hard-matting were easy to re-frame after the bad splice because the black bars served as a guide. That tells me that theaters showing 1.37:1 films were presenting them in 1.85:1 -- at least the many theaters I worked for. There were probably theaters in larger markets that were able to display 1.37:1 proper, but we always used two formats: flat & scope. For scope, we had to change to an anamorphic lens and use a different aperture plate. Hence, a hard-matted 1.85:1 non-anamorphic film projected on-screen identically to a 1.37:1 film. Also, when showing anamorphic widescreen films, the side curtains were opened wider in order to display the full 2.35:1 frame. Not sure what you mean by half frame, but with 35mm film the image area is located between the sprocket holes, 4 perforations on each side. That image area is 24.89x18.67mm (1.33:1), but with the optical sound added it is 22×16mm (1.37:1). I think your numbers are counting the full width of the film, including the sprocket perforations which are not used for the image.
Twistin 21st Aug 2016		Cinema Those Redheads From Seattle (1953) (1953)	George, I can respond to aspect ratios. Think of 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 as basically the same thing because they more or less are; 4:3 films are referred to as the two aspect ratios liberally. The difference in the two is based upon the image shot on film in the camera, which uses the full 35mm frame size of 1.33:1 (also for 16mm), but once the soundtrack is added to the film, it occupies the left edge of the frame area contiguously, thus reducing the aspect ratio width to 1.37:1. Hence, there is no area of the frame being cropped from the final negative and printed film release. Perhaps the reason for the confusion is the display area of TV was until recently 1.33:1, so even if a theatrical film is 1.37:1, some variation alters that to a 1.33:1 broadcast AR. At the cinema, what you see on the screen can vary. The most common aspect ratio is 1.85:1, created by matting (cropping) the 1.37:1 frame, theatrically matted with the projector's aperture plate. You can often locate TV or VHS copies of 1.85:1 films which are un-matted and reveal additional information on the top and bottom of the screen, never intended to be seen by the public. However some films are hard-matted* and instead of the information still existing on the print, that area of the frame is solid black, thus preserving the director / cinematographer framing. The downside is that those 4:3 versions have to be panned & scanned, like is done with anamorphic widescreen films (2.35:1 / 2.39:1). Sadly, I am often finding 2.35:1 films on cable TV (and starting to turn up on DVD / Blu-Ray) that crop the sides in order to achieve 1.78:1 aspect ratio for the purpose of filling the screen space of 16:9 TV's / monitors which are the norm in most homes today. This practice is not unlike the past practice of butchering widescreen films to fill the screen on old 4:3 TVs. (sigh) * European filmmakers often prefer matting to 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1.
Twistin 22nd May 2016		Cinema American Graffiti (1973) (1973)	One of my two fav films. And I have to respond to an old comment... If Wolfman Jack is...an example of American radio presenters...then American commercial radio is rubbish! It's absurd to judge American radio based on a character in a 40+ year-old film based on his real-life persona from the infancy of rock & roll. He was a gimmick from the early days of rock and roll and was not similar to any other DJ I am aware of. There were a small number of other DJ's who used unique voices, personalities, and other shenanigans to make their programs stand apart from their competing platter pushers. The moniker of Wolfman Jack was no doubt inspired by rock & roll radio pioneer Alan Freed's air name of Moondog (and the accompanying wolf howl sample used on his shows.) Wolfman's presence in the film is based on his outlaw status on the radio in the early 60's on the Mexican border radio station known as "The X" (ZZ Top has a song called "Heard It on the X" which is about that station.) The station could be picked up throughout most of North America back then and so Wolfman was a national voice delivering the rock & roll goods to young people who were mostly fed easy listening, soft pop, country...most anything but rock & roll and R&B. It may seem annoying today, but most millennials I know are just as intolerant of 99% of music from this era, so it's clearly a generational chasm. That said, I was as disappointed as everybody else by Wolfman's voice-overs on the soundtrack album.
Twistin 15th Mar 2016		Cinema 2010 (2010: The Year We Make Contact) (1984) (1984)	I said highjacking “a” story, and that was a generalization (following mention of two additional film adaptations) - it was not intended as a declaration that he did so to any of the films specifically, just a metaphor about the control a director may have over source material. For example, the visual pace and the way the music is married to those images. Preemptive strike: Likewise, my comment, Kubrick steals the ownership of the stories he adapts should not be misconstrued. I won’t bother to explain (or defend) that one, but it’s not derogatory. (After all, what pops in your head when someone says “A Clockwork Orange”? The book?)
Twistin 1st Feb 2016		Cinema The Other (1972) (1972)	10000th item added to Cinema World!
Twistin 27th Dec 2015		Cinema Winter A-Go-Go (1965) (1965)	That song is played over the credits at the beginning and end of the film, as I recall.
Twistin 17th Dec 2015		Cinema Winter A-Go-Go (1965) (1965)	By spherical, that is to say non-anamorphic (so widescreen by proxy, but not "proper" widescreen, which would be 2.35:1 / 2.40:1...squeezed to fit into a 1.37:1 frame, then expanded out by the lense to fill the 2.35:1 screen.)
Twistin 17th Dec 2015		Cinema Winter A-Go-Go (1965) (1965)	I made that capture from my copy which I ripped from a TCM broadcast. Apparently the film was spherical, shot in 1.37:1 aspect ratio, then matted to 1.85:1 -- a rather common practice even today. The full height of the film was never intended to be seen and when running in theaters was matted via the projector's aperture plate. I have a number of films taken from VHS or broadcast that show the full height, while only the matted version is available in DVD. Sometimes that additional space will reveal microphones, crew members, etc. Note that not every non-anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) film has that extra information, as some are matted in the lab and that space is just black on the top and bottom of the 35mm film frame. Apparently Sony has released this on DVD-R on demand; I assume it's widescreen, but have no idea. All the online stores have it, though.
Twistin 4th Dec 2015		Cinema The Prisoner Of Second Avenue (1975) (1975)	I do have a copy of the film, so I will try to ink in another viewing (forty years later!) and see if it hits me differently. That said, I am reasonably poor (financially) and harbor no disdain towards those with more money than me -- even those excessively rich snobs of the world. I am happy with what I do have and don't respond to class division by money or any other means. :) pe@ce
Twistin 4th Dec 2015		Cinema The Prisoner Of Second Avenue (1975) (1975)	I wanted to love it, saw it in the original theatrical release. Watched the trailer many times a month prior to the showing. It looked like a fun Neil Simon comedy like many before it (and after). Also a huge fan of both Lemmon and Bancroft. But I squirmed in my seat and felt exhausted by the catalog of terrible things happening to the main characters, compounded by the punishing assault of the two shouting at one another. A feel-bad comedy, if you will. It was depressing to watch. I don't recall any hope in the film. Having seen director Melvin Frank's A Touch of Class the year before, I was expecting some of the same charm and wit, but it sure was not to be found here. Matter of fact, I didn't even see it as a comedy. I just found no laughs in all of the bad things happening to Mel and Edna, never mind being amused watching a man having a nervous breakdown. It just didn't work for me.
Twistin 26th Nov 2015		Cinema The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn (1955)	IMDb categorizes this as a TV Movie. That makes sense. In the 60's & 70's, Disney's Sunday night TV series on NBC would show made-for-TV films that were created for that program, which could be technically considered episodes, but they do function as standalone movies. Also, some TV series had two-part episodes edited into standalone TV movies which were then sold in syndication packages (and now turn up in multi-film collections like the Nifty Fifties box set linked above.)

Page 2 of 3 : Previous : Next :