USA 1977
Directed by George Lucas
With Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher
Format: DVD
So not episode 4, not A New Hope, just Star Wars. Yesterday was May 25th and like I do every year since 1985, I watch Star Wars on the day of it's release in 1977. A 26 years tradition going strong. Up to 6 years ago I would be watching either a VHS or my Laserdisc copy but since they came out on DVD, I just been using that copy. According to some in the Star Wars threads this is the real Star Wars and you are not a fan if you watch the others In any case I really like watching this original version of the movie on May 25th, just for nostalgia sake. The rest of the year I watch the special edition. So last night Star Wars turn 34 and it's funny that afterall these years and all these times seeing it over those 34 years, this movie still make me feel like that little 9 years old boy who first saw it in 1977. It's keeping me young at heart. Thank you Mr. Lucas.
You must be pretty excited for the Blu-ray release, being such a big fan.
Kubrick's controversial film finally available on Blu-ray
Lolita (drama, romance)
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Starring James Mason, Peter Sellers, Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon
Warner Bros. | 1962 | 154 min | Released May 31, 2011
Video:
Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Video resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 1.66:1
Audio:
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 1.0
French: Dolby Digital 1.0
German: Dolby Digital 1.0
Italian: Dolby Digital 1.0
Portuguese: Dolby Digital 1.0
Spanish (Castillan and Latin): Dolby Digital 1.0
Subtitles:
English SDH, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Portuguese (Brasil), Spanish (Castillan and Latin), Swedish
Disc:
Single 25GB Blu-ray Disc
The Film 4/5
Stanley Kubrick was capable of working in any genre, ranging from historical epics to futuristic science fiction. He gave us serious drama and dark comedy. Lolita certainly has its serious moments, but it's also filled with dark humor and is arguably his most controversial film.
Vladimir Nabokov's book was about a 12-year-old girl and would have been an even more controversial film if Kubrick had kept Lolita at that age. In the film, Lolita (Lyon) is 15-years-old and it changes the overall tone somewhat.
Professor Humbert Humbert (Mason) is a British author looking for a home in New Hampshire. He visits Charlotte Haze (Winters) who is looking to rent a room. Humbert is on the verge of leaving and looking elsewhere, but sees her daughter, Lolita, sunbathing in the garden. He decides to stay and becomes obsessed with her. From his viewpoint, Lolita is flirting with him. She kisses him and plays with her hula hoop right in front of him. Meanwhile, Charlotte is hoping to start a relationship of her own with Humbert and doesn't notice the attention he gives Lolita.
Humbert's obsession grows and he keeps a secret journal about his feelings, but he's dismayed when Charlotte sends Lolita to summer camp 200 miles away. Charlotte then writes a letter to Humbert declaring her love for him and issues an ultimatum. She tells him to leave, or stay and marry her. He finds the letter hilarious and has no interest in her, but marries her to be close to Lolita. This act shows the extent of his obsession.
After the marriage, Charlotte decides to send Lolita to boarding school. Humbert fantasizes about killing her and spending the rest of his life with Lolita. Charlotte discovers his diary and true feelings and decides that she can't live with the knowledge, leaving Humbert to pursue his plan.
Another key character is that of Clare Quilty (Sellers). The opening scene of the film shows Humbert tracking down Quilty and shooting him. The remainder of the film shows the events leading up to Quilty's murder. Sellers plays the part well and tries to manipulate Humbert by pretending to be several different people. In Dr. Strangelove, the characters he portrays actually are separate individuals, but that's not the case here. Sellers writes plays and wants Lolita to appear in one, but seems to have an ulterior motive.
We see everything from Humbert's point of view and he's also the narrator at times. Was Kubrick trying to make us empathize with Humbert's feelings by placing us in his position? Was he trying to get us to root for Humbert and hope that he would somehow end up with Lolita?
The film is long at 154 minutes, but never seems to drag. Although we know that Humbert shoots Quilty, we don't know why until we see the preceding events. Kubrick makes some of Lolita's actions deliberately ambiguous so that we're left wondering whether she was flirting with Humbert. The overall impression is that she's not as innocent as she may appear.
The film is mainly about obsession and its impact on people's lives. Humbert's thoughts are far from pure. He wants Lolita and, although he doesn't kill Charlotte, he certainly considers doing so. The choice to make Lolita 15-years-old helped avoid some of the controversy, but this is still a film that will be emotionally upsetting for some. Much of its impact depends on our imagination and will vary from one viewer to the next.
Mason is particularly effective as the polite Englishman, while Sellers and Winters also play their parts well. Lyon doesn't get much time on screen considering she's the motivation for everything that Humbert does, but she's believable in the role.
With the release of Lolita and Barry Lyndon, and The Killing announced for August (with Killer's Kiss among the special features), all of Kubrick's films will be available on Blu-ray with the exception of Fear and Desire which he disowned.
Video Quality 3.5/5
Lolita looks a little disappointing on Blu-ray. The 154-minute running time is contained on a single-layered disc with a modest bitrate, making me wonder whether the quality was compromised. The black and white presentation is lacking in detail and generally looks soft. It doesn't hold up well alongside a title such as Psycho. Grain is light and some scenes do look quite impressive, but I hoped for more. It's still a clear upgrade over the DVD of course.
Audio Quality 4/5
The DTS-HD Master Audio 1.0 track is a definite upgrade. The mono presentation packs quite a punch and dialogue is clear throughout. We can also hear background effects such as water filling Charlotte's bath. There are no disturbing pops or crackles. The sound quality couldn't have been much better considering the limitations of the source.
Special Effects 0/5
With the exception of a 1-minute trailer in SD, there's nothing included apart from the film.
Lolita demonstrates the variety of Kubrick's subject matter and challenges the audience. I would recommend the Blu-ray to any Kubrick fan as I believe it's one of his best films. It has drama, a sense of mystery and a lot of humor. It's an easy decision for fans of the film with Amazon.com's asking price of $14.99 at the time of writing.
For those new to the film, be aware that the presentation is merely adequate. The story won't be for everyone and could drag if you aren't familiar with Kubrick's style.
I'm delighted to have it in my collection, but did hope for a release with better video quality and extensive special features.
Video Quality 3.5/5
Lolita looks a little disappointing on Blu-ray. The 154-minute running time is contained on a single-layered disc with a modest bitrate, making me wonder whether the quality was compromised. The black and white presentation is lacking in detail and generally looks soft. It doesn't hold up well alongside a title such as Psycho. Grain is light and some scenes do look quite impressive, but I hoped for more. It's still a clear upgrade over the DVD of course.
Wow. People (the serious fans) are going to be bummed out.
Wow. People (the serious fans) are going to be bummed out.
A BD25?
I'm afraid so. Just a single-layered disc for such a long film. No special features. I don't know how soft the original looked in theaters, but this doesn't hold up against the likes of Psycho. I hope Barry Lyndon is better. I like this film more though
I'm afraid so. Just a single-layered disc for such a long film. No special features. I don't know how soft the original looked in theaters, but this doesn't hold up against the likes of Psycho. I hope Barry Lyndon is better. I like this film more though
Quote:
Barry Lyndon looks impressive on Blu-ray from Warner. Film textures remain uninterrupted, colors are bright and the natural lighting seems finally at ease in digital thanks to 1080P. From Wikipedia: "Kubrick's express desire was to avoid electric lighting where possible, most shots were achieved with conventional lenses and lighting, but were lit to deliberately mimic natural light rather than for compositional reasons. In addition to potentially seeming more realistic, these methods also gave a particular period look to the film which has often been likened to 18th century paintings..." SD was problematic with this title but Blu-ray has 'turned the corner' returning the visuals to the painterly luster of their theatrical roots. This is dual-layered with a modest bitrate for the over 3-hour film framed for this release in 1.78:1. Colors seem brighter and truer than SD could relate and there is softness in the scenes that were shot in that manner. This Blu-ray probably looks as close to Barry Lyndon as we have seen from the digital medium. Kubrick fans should rejoice.
Yep, I saw that too. I'm hoping that I agree, but Lolita is my favorite of the two by far and I'm disappointed. Barry Lyndon is in my pile of stuff to see.
Oops on the L, but I frequently intentionally leave out apostrophes. I have a pet peeve against apostrophes. They are unnecessary because the context of the sentence already (and sufficiently) indicates the words meaning, be it plural or possessive. Also, because it's (it is) used to replace letters, it simply adds confusion. It has multiple uses, and that forces you to think "which use is being applied in this sentence?". Why not just let the sentence dictate that? Apostrophes are an utter waste.
"Its time to go to the movis." Did anyone NOT understand that I meant "it is"? Did you think I was talking about multiple "Its"?
"Dannys movie tickets are in his wallet." Did anyone NOT understand that the tickets belong to Danny, and that I wasnt ("was not" for you slow folks) referring to multiple Dannys?" I didnt ("did not" for you slow folks) think so.
The person who invented the false "need" for apostrophes simply complicated things and did so because he had a raging starvation for attention. "Look at me, look at me, I invented something"
"Movis" huh? You're gonna go to the movis? How much do those tickets cost?
I love how in your witty response you make yet, another, SPELLING error
You must be pretty excited for the Blu-ray release, being such a big fan.
Yep! But I stay out of the Star Wars thread now a days, it's a bit too ridiculous for my liking, I don't mind talking about a movie but what is going on that thread at times is a bit scary
I hope you enjoy it. Remember, go in expecting ridiculousness and you should be fine.
Well I was a fan of the series and when someone remain's calm and objective and sit's back and recall how the serie was back in 1983-86, I think it's safe to assume that you should not be expecting the movie to change cinema history. Then again when I read some of the stuff on this forum, it's clear that many people have very selective memories of how great, wonderful and life changing certain movies and TV shows they saw when they were 9 years old and seem to have forgotten just how silly, stupid and fun they actually were. But it's a losing battle on my part.
Starring: Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden Year: 2007 Running time: 107 minutes
[Show spoiler]I'll start off by saying I never thought this would be the movie to get me to write a review after I haven't written a real full review in this thread in over a year. Here I am though because, like Bearcat said in his review for Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I fell in love with Enchanted.
I dismissed this movie ever since it was released back in 2007 because musicals aren't my thing. Boy was I wrong, especially considering the singing portions of the movie aren't overdone. There's actually only a handful of songs. The songs that are in the movie are excellent, and Amy Adams and everyone else sings them very well.
Speaking of Amy Adams, she was absolutely perfect as Giselle. I couldn't imagine anyone else in the role and she really pulled of the role of a princess that had never been to our world. I could go on and on, but I'll end my Amy Adams praise by saying that Enchanted likely wouldn't have been as good with anyone else as Giselle. The rest of the cast turns in solid performances as well, with James Marsden doing a fine job in a very silly role.
I won't go into plot details, but Enchanted is a very entertaining mixture of the Disney classics. The filmmakers did a great job of taking those Disney classics and putting their own spin on them in a mostly live action movie. It is silly, but in the right way, and it will definitely put a smile on your face unless you absolutely can't stand singing in a movie or Disney classics. I am very happy to have finally given Enchanted a chance and to have it in my collection. I'm not sure where it would land on my all-time favorites list. I'm not even sure yet where it would land amongst other movies from 2007, but I do know for sure that this was one of my best blind buys in a while.
Alright, I've had this movie sitting on my shelf for months, and it's been staring at me in the face so way too long now, waiting to be watched for the first time ever...
Next greatest blind-buy: "Let Me In."
After one careless viewing and one fully-attentive analytical viewing, I grew to appreciate the nuances of the original Swedish film "Let the Right One In," which is a rather touching story and a poetic film. The Americanized "Let Me In" is pretty much the same stuff; both films are slowly and deliberately paced and both feature most of the same scenes.
It still has a sound story with a group of decent-enough characters. It is also a pretty decent film with solid photography, a slick style, and a decent-enough production value. On its own merits, the film will probably appeal to the casual American audience pretty well.
Compared to "LTROI" though, there are oodles of small differences and nuances that make the two totally separate. And there are a bunch of differences I really don't agree with. The actors in "LMI" just don't seem nearly as distinctive or characteristic as the originals. The bullies seem a little meaner (which is good and tense), but for whatever reason they seemed a little more menacing in the first film. The love story seemed more touching in the first film. The settings and atmosphere seemed more genuine and fitting in the first film (maybe because Sweden > New Mexico ). And the final straw is, I think the final pool scene is done much better in the original.
Wha...?!!? That film is the closest thing to Social Realists since Independence Day
You know...I wanted to come up with a witty response to this...but...I can't...you win
Quote:
Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl
Well I was a fan of the series and when someone remain's calm and objective and sit's back and recall how the serie was back in 1983-86, I think it's safe to assume that you should not be expecting the movie to change cinema history. Then again when I read some of the stuff on this forum, it's clear that many people have very selective memories of how great, wonderful and life changing certain movies and TV shows they saw when they were 9 years old and seem to have forgotten just how silly, stupid and fun they actually were. But it's a losing battle on my part.
Rose colored glasses seem to be quite popular these days don't they?
At least there are still some sane people who remember things as they actually were like you
The music is only a portion of the film, unlike a lot of regular musicals where they seem like they'd rather sing than talk. That's probably why I was able to enjoy Enchanted as much as I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvince
A perfect homage and satire of Disney classics.
I never thought I'd say it, but I obviously agree. I'm really glad I gave it a shot.
Incredible movie about 2 strangers who meet on the street and end up making music together. A guy plays guitar, a girl plays piano. This movie has that magic to it, even though it was a low budget film. The ending, as sweet as it was, broke my heart. I can't go into any details because it would ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. But I just wished the two characters could have made things different. I can't say enough about how wonderful this movie was. I was skeptical about watching a musical, but this was far from the typical "musical". It had wonderful music in it that naturally flowed into the storyline. Two very big thumbs up!
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
and you are not a fan if you watch the others 
In any case I really like watching this original version of the movie on May 25th, just for nostalgia sake. The rest of the year I watch the special edition. So last night Star Wars turn 34 and it's funny that afterall these years and all these times seeing it over those 34 years, this movie still make me feel like that little 9 years old boy who first saw it in 1977. It's keeping me young at heart. Thank you Mr. Lucas.
but I frequently intentionally leave out apostrophes. I have a pet peeve against apostrophes. They are unnecessary because the context of the sentence already (and sufficiently) indicates the words meaning, be it plural or possessive. Also, because it's (it is) used to replace letters, it simply adds confusion. It has multiple uses, and that forces you to think "which use is being applied in this sentence?". Why not just let the sentence dictate that? Apostrophes are an utter waste.
Linear Mode
