It's not just special effects -- "Lost in Translation" is hardly a special effects movie yet the shots of Tokyo are much diminshed on a small screen, even some of the interiors. I've seen it both ways and still favor seeing it in a theater. It's something like viewing an enormous abstract in a small reproduction where the scale is completely lost. In the case of special effects, "Star Wars" is just a good example of one of the with spectacular special effects, at least for its time, which on the big screen are overpowering but when reduced to the small screen are far less effective (that first shot of the spaceship cruising in seemingly over one's head just pales in comparison to seeing it on a big screen). "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" looses impact on a small screen, especially on standard ratio small TV screen. "Jurassic Park" may suffer the most from the reduction of scale -- one begins zeroing in on the slight story and it can be dissapointing. I suppose I could move up to a few feet from my TV and get more of the effect but I purposefully bought a 46" wide screen so the improved resolution wasn't diluted by blowing up the DVD 430i. Of course, I'm also thinking back to seeing "2001" on the huge Cinerama theater in Hollywood screen. I also saw "Deliverance" in a preview there and shots of the ride on the rapids are spellbinding. Not nearly as exhilirating on a small screen. Most directors design their films to be shown in full wide screen in a theater. One interesting method was Coppolla's "Dracula" where he filmed in a standard 4.3 ratio with the wide screen version framed in to cut off the top and bottom. It works and some might like to view the full screen version of their sets!
Lightwizard wrote:It's something like viewing an enormous abstract in a small reproduction where the scale is completely lost.
Absolutely, and this holds true for many movies - it's definitely not just the special effects kinds. I like this comparison a lot - depending on the movie, it can really be like seeing an abstract painting full size in a museum versus seeing a reproduction on a postcard (and I assume you wouldnt dismiss the difference between those two as mere "venue elitism" either).
I've seen several movies that did nothing for me on TV or video that were very affecting in the cinema. Take a Tarkovsky or Paradzhanov movie, which rely on the evocation of a mood that's supposed to transport you from life and take you into a parallel reality, and which include many dazzling visual elements that just go lost on a small screen. Same goes for slow-moving films that amble a bit and rely on transmitting a feeling rather than a storyline - say, a Wong Kar Wai movie.
I'm not saying that a film is not more enjoyable on a larger screen, just that a small screen isn't suddenly going to hide a films quality.
Jurassic Park's qualities are evident on a small screen. It's sequel's lack thereof are as well.
Same was the case for The Day After Tomorrow. The size of the screen won't change the experience for me enough to suddenly think it wasn't drek.
Hm, good for you. With me it can totally hide a film's quality, in that I just don't "get" it on a small screen. Not true for all films, but for some, definitely.
<shrugs>
Screen size has always seemed to affect others more than myself (i.e. not really caring if the monitor of a computer is 15" or 17").
For some, size does matter.
I was rebutting that a preference of the pleasures of theater viewing of films is not necessarily some kind of elitism. I can relate if I remember the days when friends would drag me to premieres of "big films" at Big Newport (the largest screen on the West Coast) and it was rarely a good experience as the younger audience often were noisy, routy and would interrupt the movie. The last trek with this group was to see "Congo" with a giant inflated gorilla balloon floating over the theater. The big screen just made the movie smell more than it does even with some state-of-the-art effects. A great movie designed for the big screen such as "Lawrence of Arabia" deserves to be seen in its full epic scale in Super Panavision. "Ben Hur," the same. There are independent and small films that somehow seeing them with a like crowd in a theater adds to the experience and impact of the movie. The striking black-and-white cinematography of "Woman in the Dunes" when he protagonist is trying to escape up the drifting sandy slopes is fantastic and even more fantasy induced on the big screeen.
Watched "Buffalo '66" on DVD last night with my nephew and it was just as effective as I remembered it in the art theater showing years ago.
One does sit quite close to a 15" or 17" computer screen if the full size image is of good quality -- I've watched movies on my laptop with a good set of earphones (I bought a Radio Shack volume booster with and enhanced to low end) and it was enjoyable. I think I watched the entire "The Avengers" TV series on the PC. Of course, that was designed for 1960-70 TV screens and I always liked the black-and-white episodes of the series better than the color.
I have reached a point in my life, where I do not like to go to the movies.
I have found that the audio is so loud, so intense, that it is often painful to my ears. There are many films, where the video is of such a large scope, that I find it disurbing.
I have a 50" TV connected to an external amplifier, two speakers and a subwoofer. I can sit comfortably in my lounge chair, and adjust the sound level to my preference.
Once in awhile, if my husband is watching something that I don't like, I will watch a movie on my 19" LCD computer monitor. I have surround sound, with five speakers, plus a subwoofer. I could not ask for anything better!
LOL, Phoenix. I have a 19" LCD monitor as well.
Anywho, I watched Donnie Darko, and it's a pointless well made movie.
Thing is, the ole pointless trick is cheap and insulting. It can set up interesting mind trips but only through invokation of the emperor's new clothes can it mask that it is devoid of a point.
"Murky is not deep."
Oh well, many in the audience are likely to have been able to come up with a better one than the director could have foisted on them so perhaps it's to his credit that he restrained it to the power of suggestion.
Either way, the viewer's interpretation is likely to speak to him/her powerfully. But I don't need a movie to talk to myself.
Another disappointing one-trick pony.
I've got Jim Jarmusch's "Coffee and Cigarettes"--rented it before, but didn't watch it. Too much stuff going on. Anybody seen it?
Yeah,
I did. Don't be put off my comments, its probably still worth a view -- just dont expect more than an enjoyable intermezzo (and, should you not have seen anything by Jarmusch before, dont give up on him just cause you may find you dont like this one.)
Good grief. I thought I'd remembered what had already been discussed on this thread.
Thanks for reminding me.
I'll give it a try today.
If "Donnie Darko" didn't intrigue and entertain you and you just don't like movies that are wide open to interpretation then don't rent "Mullholland Drive" 'cause it might drive you into desperation. Here's Ebert's take on the Director's Cut of "Darko:"
DONNIE DARKO REVIEW
"Darko" has become a cult classic for the very fact that everyone has their own answers to the questions about the apocalypse, time travel and
the origins of teenage angst. I need to see the director's cut as I have only seen the original and for a time travel yarn it was better than average but not great. Note that Ebert went from **1/2 to *** for the director's cut.
I just watched "House of Sand and Fog" on my computer. I really enjoyed it. I WOULD suppose that some of the effects would have played better on my TV, but there was enough on the small screen to give a sense of the ambience of the film.
Last night I watched "Magnolia", with Tom Cruise. It is a strange morality play, with vignettes of different people, with their connections coming together at the end of the movie, which is three hours long.
One of the things that stood out, was the gratuitous use of the word,"f***". Each person, from the lowest, to the most elegant, from the child to the old man, used the word freely. I think that a point was being made there. :wink: Anyhow, if they had removed just that word, I would bet that they could have cut 15 minutes from the length of the movie.
The whole movie was an anomaly. Being so long, and often tedious, it was also fascinating, so that I wanted to hang around, just to see what happened.
Anybody else see this film? What did you think?
"Magnolia" was modeled after Robert Altman's "Short Cuts." I liked the film but don't love the film. There was a tinge of psychobabble interferring with what could have been more of an effective black comedy. It just came off too serious about itself too much of the time. The revelation is worth waiting for but wouldn't one say it asks questions without answering them regarding the human condition? It does give some fine actors a showcase to show off their best acting skills, Phillip Seymore Hoffman and Willam H. Macy actually standing out in my mind over Tom Cruise's juggernaut performance as the almost mad self-help sex guru. I did not, however, find anyone "elegant" in the milieu.
Gad. Hated Coffee and Cigarettes. Couldn't last through three vignettes. How did he ever get funding for that.
I liked Magnolia. That 'linked vignette' style is almost a genre. "Thirteen Conversations", IMO, did it better. (Or, I just liked it more.)
"Sidewalks of New York" was distantly related, but more of a documentary-type...oh, I should cut the crap. I would watch 90 minutes of Edward Burns staring at the camera.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Last night I watched "Magnolia", with Tom Cruise.
Anybody else see this film? What did you think?
I saw this film and admit to watching it over again.
The word 'fasinating' resonates best, for me.
In some ways it was like watching a train wreck, but I was genuinely moved by many scenes.
um
Phoenix, did you really watch it
with Tom Cruise? hee hee
By the way, that movie included the last work by Jason Robards:
Robards Tribute
"Thirteen Conversations" is good but it doesn't have the extraordinary payoff at the end of the movie. I wouldn't want to mention what that is because it's a spoiler -- let's just say it's providence from a natural but rare phenomenon. Altman has been a pioneer in establishing new directoral and storyline flares for new format. I'm sure there will be more to come in this art of telling small stories that relate. Actually, "The Hours" bears a lot of resemblance only it looks backwards for it's linkage.
It was Julianne Moore's character, incidentally, who was so fond of injecting the "F" word in so much of her dialogue and it actually did reveal a lot about her character.
Really appreciated The Hours.
