Nomads (1986) - August 18, 2015

[Scottie]

Nomads (1986)

A French anthropologist moves to Los Angeles and is followed by the evil spirits of an extinct tribe he once uncovered.

[jmb1381]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Nomads (1986)

I watched this awhile back on Netflix and enjoyed it. Depending on what special features maybe on it, I may try to pick this up.

[Caution_Zombies]

ive never seen this, but I might blind buy because of my love for 80s horror type movies, plus of John McTiernan & Pierce Brosnon

[StingingVelvet]

Yeah, McTiernan and Brosnan plus 80's genre film should equal right up my alley. I hear this movie is horrible though. Will probably try and see it ahead of time.

[jc480]

I think you're right Velvet...I've been aware of it for a while as an old fart and I recall that it was not a good movie...never bothered to watch it.

If someone finds it entertaining please say so I'm always happy to revisit my impressions!

[Abby is Q]

I hated it. I've tried to block it from my memory. All I remember were terrible French accents (not even in a funny way), gangster eskimos (not as funny as it sounds on paper), and a nonsensical plot where a woman sees visions through a dead man and she wanders around the city solving a plot that didn't really make much sense. It's not scary, it's not suspenseful, it's not worth watching.

[superunknown80]

I've just grabbed the German bluray for £10 shipped from Amazon France. Also noticed there is a French blu with the same art as Scream Factory but that bluray is double the price. I hated this moiety first watch but it's grown on me more and more with each successive watch

[konfu]

I just bought the french BR edition, and was awfully surpised to find out the copy on the disc is in 1:33

But what surprised me is the comparison with the 1:85 version.
The 1:33 isn't cropped, it has more image up and down, and i don't understand, because usually, 1:33 widescreen version were cropped on the sides, loosing image, to get a 1:33.

So the more image up and down means it has been shot on a 3/4 film, then cropped to get a 1:85.

Does someone knows more movie film photography, about why there is more image than the ratio 1:85 it was supposed to be shoot on ? Was it planed to be for TV before they decided to put it on theater ? was it cheaper to shoot on larger stock ?

[TheMGR]

Originally Posted by konfu

I just bought the french BR edition, and was awfully surpised to find out the copy on the disc is in 1:33

But what surprised me is the comparison with the 1:85 version.
The 1:33 isn't cropped, it has more image up and down, and i don't understand, because usually, 1:33 widescreen version were cropped on the sides, loosing image, to get a 1:33.

So the more image up and down means it has been shot on a 3/4 film, then cropped to get a 1:85.

Does someone knows more movie film photography, about why there is more image than the ratio 1:85 it was supposed to be shoot on ? Was it planed to be for TV before they decided to put it on theater ? was it cheaper to shoot on larger stock ?

This is perfectly normal. Most 1.85 movies that originated on film were shot "open matte" with spherical lenses meaning the entire 35mm film frame (approximately 1.37) was exposed -- however the films were framed for 1.85 and the extra material above and below the framelines is not meant to be seen (which is why that space often reveals lights, microphones, unfinished sets, etc when viewed in full frame). Once 1.85 became the widescreen "standard" for North American movie theatres, this was the best way to achieve that result with regular (spherical) lenses and standard 35mm film. In this situation, there is no cropping on the sides in a 1.33 version.

Except...

It's worth noting though that scenes/shots with optical effects in movies like this were often "hard matted" to 1.85 for technical reasons meaning there is no extra space above the widescreen framelines so these scenes/shots will not be "open matte" in a 1.33 home video presentation -- they will be cropped on the sides. It's almost certain that this movie also has scenes like that.

And of course there are some 1.85 films shot in 35mm that were entirely hard matted and in that situation the only way to format them for 1.33 is to crop the sides. But, the vast majority of 1.85 movies shot on film were open matte so no cropping is needed for 1.33, aside from the aforementioned optical effects and other scenes that may have been hard matted.

For movies shot on film, cropping the sides for 1.33 only happens with movies that are hard-matted for 1.85 or for movies shot in 70mm or with anamorphic lenses.

Hope this helps!

[konfu]

Originally Posted by TheMGR

This is perfectly normal. Most 1.85 movies that originated on film were shot "open matte" with spherical lenses meaning the entire 35mm film frame (approximately 1.37) was exposed -- however the films were framed for 1.85 and the extra material above and below the framelines is not meant to be seen (which is why that space often reveals lights, microphones, unfinished sets, etc when viewed in full frame). Once 1.85 became the widescreen "standard" for North American movie theatres, this was the best way to achieve that result with regular (spherical) lenses and standard 35mm film. In this situation, there is no cropping on the sides in a 1.33 version.

Except...

It's worth noting though that scenes/shots with optical effects in movies like this were often "hard matted" to 1.85 for technical reasons meaning there is no extra space above the widescreen framelines so these scenes/shots will not be "open matte" in a 1.33 home video presentation -- they will be cropped on the sides. It's almost certain that this movie also has scenes like that.

And of course there are some 1.85 films shot in 35mm that were entirely hard matted and in that situation the only way to format them for 1.33 is to crop the sides. But, the vast majority of 1.85 movies shot on film were open matte so no cropping is needed for 1.33, aside from the aforementioned optical effects and other scenes that may have been hard matted.

For movies shot on film, cropping the sides for 1.33 only happens with movies that are hard-matted for 1.85 or for movies shot in 70mm or with anamorphic lenses.

Hope this helps!

You resolved all my questions about this disc i'm sick with. Can't believe they released that.
Thank you so much.

[moviemaker]

It's basically McTiernan's student film (five years after graduating from AFI).

Say what you will about the film (a wannabe Peter Weir "The Last Wave"/"The Plumber" meets early Michael Mann, with some nods to the star of the day, France's Christopher Lambert, and fails on all counts), but it gets a B for effort. It's trying really hard. I'm sure they thought that regardless of the convoluted "artsy" plot, they had it front-loaded with 80's pop stars to bring in the crowd, which it failed to do.

Not for everyone, but as a young kid, there was a sense of atmosphere and dread that kept me returning, perhaps hoping for a better understanding of what the film was trying to say or maybe because it was on heavy rotation on HBO or Showtime back in the day.

Interestingly, Schwarzenegger was also captivated by its mood and atmosphere enough that he made the call to hire McTiernan for Predator. He saw enough potential in the young director. Honestly, I wish more people would take these chances, as opposed to today, when you have to have an indie hit out of the gate to get your shot.

Because of that chance, we have been gifted with one of the most underrated action directors of the 1980s: Predator, Die Hard, The Hunt For Red October, and Last Action Hero (which now has a cult following). Not a bad run.

[Justin_Playfair]

I had completely forgotten about this film until I saw the announcement of a remaster that'll be released in Europe. In hindsight, I'm surprised I never noticed it when perusing the Shout/Scream Factory titles, but now I'm glad I overlooked it since the rescan will hopefully be better. Even so, I may yet buy a copy of the Shout version because I remember it being a creepy and suspenseful film. I didn't associate it with McTiernan, and now I know why: because he wasn't "known" then.

[Toby Dammit]

Are there any numors, news, chances about a 4k release of the film?
It's coming a 2k restored bluray from an uk label, but first I would liked to know if it will be released in 4k.

[Wonderfulworld]

Watched the UK / Treasured Films release. Glad to say it looked great. Natural and film-like, pretty much Arrow or Indicator quality. I saw a film copy of this last year in a film festival (presented by the director himself) and to me this new blu ray has that same look and feel. A 4K could be even better but I don't think it would be a huge leap, this blu looks good enough.

The movie itself is fantastic, a hidden gem really, quite unique style. Shows how talented John McTiernan was right from the beginning. It's rougher than his later masterpieces, but in a good way, and to me it was just as enjoyable. Four near perfect flics in a row (this, Predator, Die Hard and Red October) - that is very rare among directors.

[Nitroes]

Originally Posted by Wonderfulworld

Watched the UK / Treasured Films release. Glad to say it looked great.

Nice set for those who like importing.

Treasured Films

[SeanJoyce]

Tarantino insists that it was this movie, and not Predator, that convinced Bruce Willis to sign on for Die Hard (I would have thought that a lead role and the paycheck were more enticing arguments, but what do I know.)