BDs That Are Out of Print (OOP)

[thatguamguy]

The Last Detail isn't out of print by the standards of this list (which is to say, if that's "out of print", every single Twilight Time title is "out of print"), it's still available at SAE with at least 50 copies.

[KeithVK]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

The Last Detail isn't out of print by the standards of this list (which is to say, if that's "out of print", every single Twilight Time title is "out of print"), it's still available at SAE with at least 50 copies.

I just mentioned it because Twilight Time had mentioned that all remaining copies they had were sold and the only remaining copies were with SAE. But fair enough.

[KeithVK]

another maybe...?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by KeithVK

another maybe...?

[Show spoiler]

The two pack is still readily available.

[reaperx187]

Originally Posted by KeithVK

another maybe...?

Think that Dollar General had both the first and second films there for cheap!.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by KeithVK

I just mentioned it because Twilight Time had mentioned that all remaining copies they had were sold and the only remaining copies were with SAE. But fair enough.

The cheaper and better Indicator region-free edition makes the Twilight Time irrelevant anyway.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars. I'll take his opinion over yours: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-phantom-1996.

Ebert also thought Die Hard sucked.

[UltraMario9]

[BluVinyl]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Ebert also thought Die Hard sucked.

Had to agree with him on that one.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by BluVinyl

Had to agree with him on that one.

Kind of a rare opinion. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by BluVinyl

Had to agree with him on that one.

Die Hard is one of the greatest action movies ever made.

[UltraMario9]

Ebert championed A.I: Artificial Intelligence, Cloud Atlas and New Nightmare so he gets a lifetime pass from me.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by BluVinyl

Had to agree with him on that one.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by UltraMario9

Ebert championed A.I: Artificial Intelligence, Cloud Atlas and New Nightmare so he gets a lifetime pass from me.

When did this turn into a trashing Roger Ebert thread? lol

[KeithVK]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

When did this turn into a trashing Roger Ebert thread? lol

In all fairness, Ebert is indeed OOP

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by UltraMario9

Ebert championed A.I: Artificial Intelligence, Cloud Atlas and New Nightmare so he gets a lifetime pass from me.

Did I agree with every review Ebert wrote? No. But he's still is the greatest film critic of all time.

My thoughts on the movies you trashed:

A.I.: Great but flawed.

Cloud Atlas: A misunderstood masterpiece IMO, but I can easily see why others hate it.

New Nightmare: I'm with you on this one. One of the most overrated movies of all time, whose praise I will never, ever understand.

Edit: Someone else mentioned Die Hard. One of the few reviews Ebert was flat out "wrong" about IMO and couldn't justify. Usually, even when I disagreed with him, I could understand where he was coming from. But I have no idea what he was thinking when he gave Die Hard a "thumbs down."

[meremortal]

Haven't seen New Nightmare since I was a kid at the theater. All I remember about it was it was me and another couple in there and they were laughing pretty hysterically when Freddy used his tongue as a weapon.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Edit: Someone else mentioned Die Hard. One of the few reviews Ebert was flat out "wrong" about IMO and couldn't justify. Usually, even when I disagreed with him, I could understand where he was coming from. But I have no idea what he was thinking when he gave Die Hard a "thumbs down."

This is from his review:
"As nearly as I can tell, the deputy chief is in the movie for only one purpose: to be consistently wrong at every step of the way and to provide a phony counterpoint to Willis' progress. The character is so willfully useless, so dumb, so much a product of the Idiot Plot Syndrome, that all by himself he successfully undermines the last half of the movie. Thrillers like this need to be well-oiled machines, with not a single wasted moment. Inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot and prevent it from working."

I think the bolded part is extreme, but I agree with him about the character. It doesn't undermine the movie for me, but it does test the boundaries a bit.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

This is from his review:
"As nearly as I can tell, the deputy chief is in the movie for only one purpose: to be consistently wrong at every step of the way and to provide a phony counterpoint to Willis' progress. The character is so willfully useless, so dumb, so much a product of the Idiot Plot Syndrome, that all by himself he successfully undermines the last half of the movie. Thrillers like this need to be well-oiled machines, with not a single wasted moment. Inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot and prevent it from working."

I think the bolded part is extreme, but I agree with him about the character. It doesn't undermine the movie for me, but it does test the boundaries a bit.

I get that. But this is the same movie where balding schlub Bruce Willis takes on an entire group of terrorists by himself, jumps off burning buildings (or was that the sequel?), etc. You kinda just have to go with it, to a certain degree.

But I'll defend the deputy chief character, somewhat. Just like Hans Gruber provided John McClane a villainous foil on the top floors of the building, the deputy chief did the same for Carl Winslow on the ground.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

But I'll defend the deputy chief character, somewhat. Just like Hans Gruber provided John McClane a villainous foil on the top floors of the building, the deputy chief did the same for Carl Winslow on the ground.

I think that Ebert was more ranting about a general pet peeve (he also calls the movie "one of those action movies where the hero gets his shirt torn in the first act so he can show off his muscles" which kind of seems to miss the whole point of casting Bruce Willis rather than Stallone or your boy). That sort of character always walks a fine line, to me, where you have to have them be adversarial, but you also have to justify the fact that they've reached this high a position, and I do think that the deputy chief is needlessly dumb about the whole thing -- not quite distractingly so, but I can see why it would bother Ebert more. [It seems to me like an easy fix would be, have the police officers obtain a list of hostages (which the reporter manages to do), be smart enough to figure out who the mysterious NY cop who is visiting a specific office party (even the reporter figures this out through stupidity rather than intelligence), and then they hear from McClane's NY superiors that he's a loose cannon. Then he'd have a semi-intelligent reason to be against McClane, instead of just pure obstruction. It's still a cliche, but a smoother one.]

To me, it's way too small a thing to ruin the movie. And I agree with you that he provides some balance in the structure of the script. But I also sympathize with Ebert because sometimes my own pet peeves prevent me from enjoying movies that I know are objectively pretty good.

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

jumps off burning buildings (or was that the sequel?)

It's this one, but you somehow make it sound so much less absurd than it is.