CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Grating things in otherwise Classic films
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Grating things in otherwise Classic films - Page 4

post #151 of 209
8/14/08 at 3:34pm
Without the flashback, we would never see the 'real' Rick, and we would think the grumpy Casablanca version was it. The way the flashback is done, with the fade from the smoke, seems cheesy today, but it's definitely necessary to the story.
Reply
post #152 of 209
8/14/08 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankypanky View Post
"Is that cannon fire or my heart pounding?". Ugh.
It would be cheesy if some movie did that now, but in the context of films like Casablanca, I have no problem with such flowery dialogue.
Reply
post #153 of 209
8/14/08 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankenheimer View Post
CYBIL SHEPARD in TAXI DRIVER... and THE HEARTBREAK KID.
If you want to add to your dislike, by her own admission when she first got the script for Taxi Driver she threw it across the room because the part was too small. It's in the documentary that used to be on the VHS copy of that film. I also think she was perfectly cast for that and TLPS.

And Sarah Holcomb, the "Irish/Scottish" girl who started this thread, fell into drug abuse and mental illness and never acted again after Caddyshack. She was in Animal House with 70's SNL folk, who supposedly introduced her to drugs. She is now "living a quiet, obscure life in Connecticut under a different name" according to Wikipedia. The movie "Stateside" is about her.
Reply
post #154 of 209
8/14/08 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
Without the flashback, we would never see the 'real' Rick, and we would think the grumpy Casablanca version was it. The way the flashback is done, with the fade from the smoke, seems cheesy today, but it's definitely necessary to the story.
I remember reading, though I can't recall the source right now, that Howard Koch, one of the writers, was vehemently against the flashback. It was the Epsteins who wanted it in the film.

I myself think the flashback is indeed quite unnecessary. It doesn't tell us anything that's not at least inferred in the rest of the film. Sure, one could say it shows us the 'real' Rick, but Bogart doesn't actually seem very comfortable in that role, and leaving out the flashbacks makes Rick's actions at the end an even greater surprise. In that respect the flashback to me is kinda like Han not shooting first I guess. ; )

A friend of mine always argues for the flashback, because he loves the scene with Rick in the rain at the station. I guess he has a point there, but I'd still say the film doesn't need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
It would be cheesy if some movie did that now, but in the context of films like Casablanca, I have no problem with such flowery dialogue.
Next to gems as "The germans wore gray, you wore blue" it's a terrible line if you ask me. But still, Casablanca is one of my favourite films, with or without flashback.


Edited to add:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Yeah, we kind of need that flashback for the character backstories. In case it escaped notice, it's not actually a movie about the war.
Well, the film is actually about the isolationist attitude towards the war that was prevalent in the US before (and also still after) Pearl Harbor and the need change that attitude and take part in the global struggle against fascism.
Reply
post #155 of 209
8/14/08 at 9:41pm
heh it may not be a casablanca level of classic

but in Happy Gilmore the scene where he is tryin out for the hockey team and is being judged by his coaches. he shoots the puck and it smashes the 'plexiglass' but its pretty apparent that there isn't any glass on either side of that shattered section
Reply
post #156 of 209
8/14/08 at 10:44pm
Batman Forever is, of course, not a classic. Brain fart on my part, or maybe I was looking for an excuse to complain about a wasted opportunity. The proposed Batman: The Dark Knight/Triumphant from like 1998 could have been interesting because it was supposed to have Scarecrow and Manbat and take place on Halloween. If only Tim Burton was set to direct and not Joel Schumacher.

Here's a classic complaint about The Wizard of Oz. What's so wonderful about the damn Wizard? He's obviously full of shit from the start when he sends a little girl to kill a WICKED WITCH. When they get back for their rewards he gives them placebos, then when the balloon accidentally starts to float away he yells "goodbye Dorothy!" like he's not abandoning the poor wretch. Then Glenda reveals Dorothy could have gone home all along? Fuck Oz-ians...not the Australian kind.
Reply
post #157 of 209
8/18/08 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gulager View Post
The jump cut in Alien when it switches from a clearly fake head on a desk to Ian Holm spitting milk.
This has ALWAYS bugged me.
Especially when you consider a simple side-wipe of someone going past the camera would of softened the blow.
Ridley on the commentary remarks of this scene "Good edit".
It's not a good edit, Mr. Scott...it's shite.

Ian Holm's 'You have my sympathy' speech makes up for it, though...
Reply
post #158 of 209
8/18/08 at 12:20pm
In Titanic during the height of the sinking when the people in the back of the ship is thrust forward, hitting various objects in their way, there is this huge round "iron" thing (where you wrap the rope around during docking) that is clearly made of rubber since it bends in several shots when people are hitting it. I noticed it the very first time I saw the movie and since then it kind of ruins the emotional impact whenever I get to that scene.

Yes I like Titanic.
Reply
post #159 of 209
8/18/08 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Ridley on the commentary remarks of this scene "Good edit".
It's not a good edit, Mr. Scott...it's shite.
Dry British sarcasm maybe?
Reply
post #160 of 209
8/18/08 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Fordyce View Post
Watching Close Encounters the other night, and something that has always bugged me (but not really) is the geography. I hate to break it to you folks, but that is not Indiana. It takes a few more minutes to get from Muncie to the Ohio border.

And nobody in the history of ever in the state of Indiana has called another human being a "turkey".
I can back both of these up
Reply
post #161 of 209
8/18/08 at 10:25pm
The guy who went in before Martin did in Apocalypse Now, considering the rest of the supporting actors who work wonders with very little screen time, I thought more time with him in the end could of helped. I don't wan to know his full story but a little morsel would of been great.
Reply
post #162 of 209
8/19/08 at 4:20am
I was recently reminded of a scene in No Country For Old Men that bothers me every time I see it now. Anton Chigurh is scouring the roads for Moss and at one point is going over a bridge. As his car crosses it, he leans out the window to shoot at a bird standing on one of the support posts.

It'll probably sound odd, but I think this simple action gives us too much insight into the character. It's not hard to extrapolate from this he was one of those kids that'd torture small animals for fun, and it takes away from the mysterious nature of the character that makes him so memorable and haunting.

I will say that it's still a testament to the movie's strengths that you can take so much from so little, but that one scene doesn't work for me.
Reply
post #163 of 209
8/19/08 at 12:26pm
I thought that scene worked well in showing us that this guy is not hellish creature incarnate, a 'Saint of Killers' who always gets his mark, but a victim to fate and circumstance just like any of us. Sometimes, you're just unlucky and you don't get the kill.
Reply
post #164 of 209
8/19/08 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
I thought that scene worked well in showing us that this guy is not hellish creature incarnate, a 'Saint of Killers' who always gets his mark, but a victim to fate and circumstance just like any of us. Sometimes, you're just unlucky and you don't get the kill.
I thought the fact that he gets in the car accident proved he was mortal and prone to fate and circumstance more than enough, and at a better point in the story to do so. Having him appear to be supernaturally good at what he does throughout the movie, and then at the end have him not be works far better.

I'll admit, I never really considered that scene beyond my gut reaction that they're giving us too much insight into what makes him tick. Good reading there, but I stand by my assertions.
Reply
post #165 of 209
8/19/08 at 5:47pm
3 Days of the Condor.

He kidnaps a girl, threatens her throughout with a gun, ties her to a bathtub in an uncomfortably position and leaves for a few hrs. Then he returns and forces her at gunpoint to talk to her "sweetheart" all while the tears are streaming down her face.

Then the grating part; he spends 2½ minute talking about her photos (which he like), and they then make passionate love!!!

I really wish they had waited a little longer with that.
Reply
post #166 of 209
8/20/08 at 3:36pm
Watched Don't Look Now just the other day and I'm sorry to say that [Spoiler?] Donald Sutherland's throat getting cut takes me right out of it. I wish to God that had been a great gore effect, then that movie would rank in my top 10 horror films of all time.
Reply
post #167 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:21pm
The incredibly fake backgrounds in T2 in the scene were they drive away at night right after the escape from the sanitarium. It looks like something from a silent movie from the 20s
Reply
post #168 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:36pm
ugh
if there is one thing that pulls me out of nearly all movies, its really fake moving backgrounds. i can handle this on tv because of the budget, but if your running a multimillion dollar operation, the least you can do is make it SEEM like your cast is actually in a moving car.
Reply
post #169 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:42pm
I find that I really don't mind rear-projection in car scenes. If the idea is that it's just a dialogue scene in a car (and not some action sequence), it's not a big deal. It's a real pain in the ass to have to keep a car straight on the road, have it properly lit, and get good production audio. The T2 scene has the added difficulty of it being set at night.

Some directors also seem to have an affection for the rear-projection process as well.
Reply
post #170 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:45pm
Sometimes its done deliberately. (A stylistic choice by the director) With Hitchcock / DePalma, it increases the dreamlike atmosphere/ nightmare quality. I'm sure that's what Cameron was homaging.

(Worst aspect of the advent of this cgi age, is its made many viewers lazy)
Reply
post #171 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:47pm
Pulp Fiction kinda shows this. Butch and Esmerelda's scene has the backdrop, where Jules and Vincent are really driving (if memory serves me). Just a different style needed for that one scene leaving the fight.
Reply
post #172 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:49pm
I remember it working really well in The Matrix as well, when Neo drives by the really good noodle house. That added a nice dream-like quality that was very fitting given the context.

Though I must say, I really don't like blue-screen driving dialogue scenes. I guess it's just a single step too far removed from what I can visually accept. Rear-projection is fine for me, probably because I emotionally associate it with an old-school technique. But blue/greenscreened driving background plates look so bad (when they're noticeable).

The scene between Bruce Willis and Justin Long driving in the country in Die Hard 4 looked REALLY bad.
Reply
post #173 of 209
8/24/08 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Pulp Fiction kinda shows this. Butch and Esmerelda's scene has the backdrop, where Jules and Vincent are really driving (if memory serves me). Just a different style needed for that one scene leaving the fight.
Good call. The Jules/Vincent scene came to mind, but I forgot about the Butch/Esmerelda one (which is also a night scene, by the way).
Reply
post #174 of 209
8/24/08 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I remember it working really well in The Matrix as well, when Neo drives by the really good noodle house. That added a nice dream-like quality that was very fitting given the context.

Though I must say, I really don't like blue-screen driving dialogue scenes. I guess it's just a single step too far removed from what I can visually accept. Rear-projection is fine for me, probably because I emotionally associate it with an old-school technique. But blue/greenscreened driving background plates look so bad (when they're noticeable).

The scene between Bruce Willis and Justin Long driving in the country in Die Hard 4 looked REALLY bad.
I agree. Nostalgia is no excuse for cheap looking driving scenes. If they are going for specific mood or homage, then fine. Typically though, it's just cheap/lazy and looks like shit. Killing suspension of disbelief isn't something that should be thrown around lightly.

That being said, The Matrix's slow-motion projection is excellent. I think the projection itself is done well, which makes the slow-mo special effect more valuable.
Reply
post #175 of 209
8/24/08 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Good call. The Jules/Vincent scene came to mind, but I forgot about the Butch/Esmerelda one (which is also a night scene, by the way).
I think the Butch/Esmerelda rear projection actually was in black & white.
Reply
post #176 of 209
8/24/08 at 6:21pm
Each technological development takes us steps and steps away from reality. At least with rear-projection, the actors had something to play off of. There was at least some illusion of movement in their performance. Now with bluescreen/greenscreen, they don't even have that. And if the lighting in the car doesn't match the images they're to be composited with later, forget about it. That Die Hard job was just shoddy.

And though nostalgia is no excuse for a bad rear-projection job, I'd much prefer that over a badly done bluescreen job. It's really an emotional preference thing though. I'm sure someone younger than me would prefer the opposite. Though I'd call them insane!

Can anyone point me to a bluescreened in-vehicle dialogue scene that was done really well?
Reply
post #177 of 209
8/24/08 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I think the Butch/Esmerelda rear projection actually was in black & white.
Really? I remember it being quite colorful (in a very noir way, if that makes any sense).
Reply
post #178 of 209
8/24/08 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luscious Python View Post
The psychiatrist describing Norman Bate's life story at the end of PSYCHO. "He's suffering a personality disorder" no shit Sherlock.
FWIW, this always irked me too, until I read an article that said that audiences in 1960 wouldn't have been familiar with psychological disorders like audiences in 2008 would be, and the science of it grounded the character in reality, which was supposed to make it even scarier (someone like Bates could really exist, etc.).
Reply
post #179 of 209
8/24/08 at 6:41pm
That's exactly it. That scene actually made the audience more uncomfortable in 1960. Mental illness wasn't something that was discussed at the time.
Reply
post #180 of 209
8/25/08 at 2:55am
"Marty Katrocer?"
"Here"
"Melany Morehouse?"
"Here"
"Beatrix Kiddo?"
"Here"

Not grating, just distractingly strange.
Reply
post #181 of 209
8/25/08 at 4:55am
Heh. Ditto on the Beatrix Kiddo thing. After all that bleeping out, I was like, "That's it? Oh well. Whatever. Continue forth with movie!"
Reply
post #182 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:00am
Frankly, I thought the whole business of keeping her name a secret from the audience was a pretty annoying gimmick in and of itself. I still don't see what purpose that served.
Reply
post #183 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:04am
Shuttup! It's Tarantino and his methods are above being questioned!!!
Reply
post #184 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:08am
I liked the name thing, I really did. It only works if the movie are watched together though, because the gag loses steam in the second one if it's separated from the first. It's the little cut-away to the school-room specifically that throws me off. There's nothing else like that in either film. I might like it more if he ever cuts the fucking things together.
Reply
post #185 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:14am
If he ever cuts the damned thing together, I'd prefer he drop the whole name-beep gag and the cutaway to Uma Thurman in pigtails. Looks like it wouldn't be a problem at all.

And at this point, I'm not even interested in The Whole Bloody Affair unless he makes some major editorial changes to it. I really don't see how just putting them together would do anything other than for a theatrical experience (as it's not a big deal to watch both on DVD). Plus, if he did put them together, he would have to drop the opening of Volume 2 that I love (you know... with a huge VOL. 2 rising up on the screen to Silhouette of Doom?)
Reply
post #186 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Frankly, I thought the whole business of keeping her name a secret from the audience was a pretty annoying gimmick in and of itself. I still don't see what purpose that served.
It's so you see her as the Bride, a vengeful and unstoppable warrior rather than Beatrix Kiddo, a human being. That said, it doesn't work.
Reply
post #187 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
I mentioned it was an Italian film. But it's set in America and was at least partially filmed there. Someone could have done some homework.
Homework? They didn't teach Obscure Zombie Movie studies in my school. I must have missed out.
Reply
post #188 of 209
8/25/08 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
It's so you see her as the Bride, a vengeful and unstoppable warrior rather than Beatrix Kiddo, a human being. That said, it doesn't work.
Largely because he does eventually give in and reveal her name. If you're going to do the Eastwood homage, stick with it. Changing his mind halfway through was just weird.
Reply
post #189 of 209
8/25/08 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Can anyone point me to a bluescreened in-vehicle dialogue scene that was done really well?
There are plenty that are so good that you can't tell it's blue-screen. It's just way more complicated than rear-projection. There is one scene in one of the Tomb Raider movies where it's impossible to see that it's blue-screen work. The only way I found out was when I visited the company that made some of the special-effects for that movie. They showed me that scene. It turned out to be one of the company's niche things to do.
Reply
post #190 of 209
8/25/08 at 9:16am
In a thread about classic films, Tomb Raider should never, ever come up.
Reply
post #191 of 209
8/25/08 at 10:41pm
Great example of good background effects for static driving: Big Trouble in Little China.

I honestly thought the Pork Chop Express was heading into the Bay Area.

No horseshit.
Reply
post #192 of 209
8/25/08 at 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Largely because he does eventually give in and reveal her name. If you're going to do the Eastwood homage, stick with it. Changing his mind halfway through was just weird.
The next stop is Bill, though, and she has to be human for the emotional climax.
Reply
post #193 of 209
8/25/08 at 11:31pm
I vastly preferred Part Two, though, so apparently, I just like the humanized version more. And knowing that he was headed there, playing the first film as The Woman With No Name was an odd choice.
Reply
post #194 of 209
8/25/08 at 11:35pm
Knowing her goofy name certainly never came off like it humanized her more. At least for me. The beeping did nothing for me towards seeing Thurman as The Woman With No Name. She clearly had a name but it was distractingly bleeped out. It's too cerebral! This be a movie, not a film!!!
Reply
post #195 of 209
8/26/08 at 8:11pm
Okay, this is TV rather than movies, and contains some spoilers for the 3rd season of Battlestar Galactica, so skip on if any of that matters to you...



Okay, love the show, but I recently watched the boxing/flashback episode, and was really bothered by Adama singling out the Chief to make his point about the crew losing their warrior spirit, etc. I get that he was the first to be let go on New Caprica, but it seemed stupid and unfair (and thus out of character for Adama) seeing as how 1) Chief is not actually a trained soldier, and 2) despite that, he had just been instrumental in organizing and leading the armed resistance to the Cylon occupation.

I see what they were going for, and I'm not sure who else they could've used, but it just seemed like the worst possible choice to make that point. Really rang false for me.
Reply
post #196 of 209
8/26/08 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
That's exactly it. That scene actually made the audience more uncomfortable in 1960. Mental illness wasn't something that was discussed at the time.
I always think about the scene's mention in Ebert's "Great movies" write-up:

Quote:
If I were bold enough to reedit Hitchcock's film, I would include only the doctor's first explanation of Norman's dual personality: "Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time." Then I would cut out everything else the psychiatrist says, and cut to the shots of Norman wrapped in the blanket while his mother's voice speaks ("It's sad when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son..."). Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect. I have never encountered a single convincing defense of the psychiatric blather; Truffaut tactfully avoids it in his famous interview.
Reply
post #197 of 209
8/27/08 at 12:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Spleen View Post
Homework? They didn't teach Obscure Zombie Movie studies in my school. I must have missed out.
Huh? Oh, no I meant Fulci could have done his homework.
Reply
post #198 of 209
8/29/08 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soilent Green View Post
Okay, this is probably going to make me look like a dumbass, but.. what the fuck happens to Lance at the end of Apocalypse Now? I seem to recall that he pretty much just disappears sometime after they reach the Kurtz compound and he's never heard from again.
I don't know if anyone answered this and I missed it, but Lance does leave the compound at the end with Willard. You may only see this in the Redux though, it's been a while since I saw the original cut.
Reply
post #199 of 209
8/29/08 at 3:58pm
The Greatest Story Ever Told.

John Wayne's delivery of the line "He truly was the son of man."

A Texan in Caesar's army?
Reply
post #200 of 209
8/29/08 at 4:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
"Marty Katrocer?"
"Here"
"Melany Morehouse?"
"Here"
"Beatrix Kiddo?"
"Here"

Not grating, just distractingly strange.
I still hear that dialogue as Melanie Whorehouse, no matter how stupid that is. And then I imagine it's Bridget Fonda's character from Jackie Brown, even though her name is Ralston or something.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Grating things in otherwise Classic films