Zulu

[General Vyper]

Have they fixed the acting?

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by General Vyper

Have they fixed the acting?

Acting? Pertaining to who's?

[General Vyper]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Acting? Pertaining to who's?

Well I remember Caine being particularly bad in that movie, and some of the other guys were pretty ropey too.

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by General Vyper

Well I remember Caine being particularly bad in that movie, and some of the other guys were pretty ropey too.

Actually, Zulu was M. Caine's first movie role. Jack Hawkins a "ropey" actor? Hawkins is rather a famous British actor.

It was a 1964 movie remember.

[richieb1971]

There were scenes in that movie that looked a tad silly. I'm not going to knock it though because its a well made film of that era.

I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm.

Everyone championed Braveheart, but to my eye's it didn't look that much better than Gladiator, although I would say it was a tad better.

[bmwone]

I watched it in detail and I did see a couple things. Dead British soldiers were moving. Also clearly dead Zulu warriors were breathing. Those particular rifles didn't have the range they showed. Yes it was a well made movie for that era. With the flaws.

I for one like a movie to be sharp and clean. Just my opinion

[blu_sharpy]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm.

Companies think that applying DNR to films should made them look better. As I stated before this is most definately not the case as many titles with DNR lose the fine detail that they should have and go from looking film-like to some nasty smoothed over waxwork of a film

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

Companies think that applying DNR to films should made them look better. As I stated before this is most definately not the case as many titles with DNR lose the fine detail that they should have and go from looking film-like to some nasty smoothed over waxwork of a film

Don't you think "companies" would know they are loosing detail when applying DNR. Or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

[General Vyper]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Actually, Zulu was M. Caine's first movie role. Jack Hawkins a "ropey" actor? Hawkins is rather a famous British actor.

It was a 1964 movie remember.

That's something I don't get as an argument, "It's old so you have to forgive the dodgy acting" - why exactly? Some dramatic performances from that era are awesome, yet other stuff looks like 2 wooden dolls reading lines off a board. Badly. Bad acting is bad acting no matter what year it happened.

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by General Vyper

That's something I don't get as an argument, "It's old so you have to forgive the dodgy acting" - why exactly? Some dramatic performances from that era are awesome, yet other stuff looks like 2 wooden dolls reading lines off a board. Badly. Bad acting is bad acting no matter what year it happened.

Was'nt really trying to make an argument.
Guess I should not have added that line "It was a 1964 movie remember."
Your right bad acting is bad acting.

[General Vyper]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Was'nt really trying to make an argument.
Guess I should not have added that line "It was a 1964 movie remember."
Your right bad acting is bad acting.

No worries I didn't mean 'argument' in any aggressive sense, sorry if it came across that way.