Last Movie You Watched

[Karl Henning]

Not faulting you, dear fellow, but I love, love, love the typo Subset Blvd.  Going to use that for a title.

[Karl Henning]

  I have definitely missed our conversations about this genre, Ken. 

Here are my top "noirs" to date (as IMDB tagged them with this genre tag and we could rightfully argue, IMO, that some may not deserve this tag.):

Maltese Falcon 10/10
Double Indemnity 10/10
Subset Blvd. 10/10
Ace in the Hole 10/10
Sweet Smell of Success 10
The Third Man 9/10
The Stranger 9/10
In A Lonely Place 9/10 (though this is very close to a 10)
Touch of Evil 9/10
Key Largo 9/10

Other tops the got 8 out of 10 from me, but some may move to 9* with more viewings:
Murder My Sweet*
I Walk Alone*
The Big Sleep*
White Heat
Out of the Past*
The Harder They Fall
Angels With Dirty Faces
Notorious
Strangers on a Train

And at this point, I have tried Night of the Hunter twice and both times came away not caring for it.  Setting is HUGE for me and I did not care for the one in this film. 

Touch of Evil really socked me, one of those which I bought on a whim and a prayer and which proved to be jackpot material.

I am a huge fan of both The Big Sleep and Strangers on a Train, two movies which share the curious distinction that I first watched them while working at the Exhibition Gift Shop at the MFA.

[Bogey]

All great.
*cautoiusly puts forward suggestions*
Cape Fear (1962)
Night Moves
The Killing
The Killers
They Made Me A Criminal ( dated but ...)
*fails to suggest*
The Big Clock 

I have The Killing and both Killers on my upcoming watch list (doing Brute Force right now).  Cape Fear was so-so for me and the remake I did not care for.  The Big Clock I really enjoyed...I wonder what I rated it?  Trying to track down the novel on this one as well.    And how about Chinatown for a newer one?  And then there is Asphalt Jungle, but that stands at a 7, but I am watching it again after reading Burnette's book.

Help me with Night Moves.

[NikF]

Setting is HUGE for me

And then there is Asphalt Jungle, but that stands at a 7, but I am watching it again after reading Burnette's book.

I know this isn't what this thread is about, so I'll try and be brief/keep it relatable to the topic.
While it's wonderful to have and view these things digitally restored, I'd recommend taking any opportunity to see these films in a cinema on the big screen. I believe especially so in the case of stuff like 'Asphalt Jungle', because by that time the 35mm lens was commonplace having taken over from the 50mm. The 35mm was exploited in pursuit of the wide and deep - shots encompassing both a whole room/width of a street and far into the background, but all in focus via small apertures. That was it, the 'deep focus'.

It was coupled with a technique called latensification (in my humble little world we called it 'pre-flash') where the film (including Tri-X - originally designed for TV use but lends itself nicely to this application) received an initial small exposure to light, so that overall the exposure threshold had changed, thus allowing areas or details normally too dark to be seen to become visible.

Why am I writing this? A big part of the genre is about 'atmosphere'. And when all the skills and choices made by the great cinematographers and directors come together in one of these films (Sunset Boulevard is another that uses these techniques wonderfully) it helps create that atmosphere. And among many other things, that atmosphere is beautiful. So find a digitally restored copy and view it. But also, even if there's a print that looks like it has been lost under a projectionist's bed for more than 50 years, go to see it on the big screen, because that's how it was originally designed to impart it's atmosphere and great beauty.

Okay, I will stop now.

[Mahlerian]

Not faulting you, dear fellow, but I love, love, love the typo Subset Blvd.  Going to use that for a title.

I'm imagining a large ensemble that breaks off into smaller groups...

[Ken B]

Help me with Night Moves.

Pity the poor wife! 

Gene Hackman as a private eye, young Melanie Griffiths. Color noir 

Also Cutter's Way. Different from the book, an oddball movie from the 80s with Jeff Bridges. More color noir.

I'll try to recall some more. I see you found Brute Force. I think I liked that, but it's been ages.

Is Sierra Madrid noir? If so it's the biggest gap on your list.

[Bogey]

Brute Force 1947



Loved it when Lancaster was on the screen, but if he wasn't oing the talking, then I thought it was meh.  6/10 stars.

[Ken B]

Not faulting you, dear fellow, but I love, love, love the typo Subset Blvd.  Going to use that for a title.

I'm imagining a large ensemble that breaks off into smaller groups...

I'm still big. It's the subsets that got small.

[George]

I compared 2 versions of Batman Begins (Bluray and DVD) tonight on a plasma TV. My girlfriend and I could barely tell the difference between them. Are we alone in this? Or is the difference really dependent on the title, or age of the movie in question?

[SonicMan46]

I compared 2 versions of Batman Begins (Bluray and DVD) tonight on a plasma TV. My girlfriend and I could barely tell the difference between them. Are we alone in this? Or is the difference really dependent on the title, or age of the movie in question?

Hi George - a lot of considerations: 1) What is the resolution of your plasma TV - assume HDTV but is it 1080p;  and 2) Was the DVD a standard 480 resolution (video formats HERE).  These are the basic requirements, but also for BD, the source material and the re-mastering are critical, i.e. taking a standard DVD source and simply trying to upscale to BD often does not work well - I own over 500 BDs (many DVD replacements) and for most the increased video and audio quality is spectacular on a 1080p HDTV, which I own.  But often the BD transfer can be disappointing, just depends on so many factors - as to the film mentioned (which I do own on BD but did not compare to my 'culled out' DVD), the REVIEW might be of interest - the video quality is stated to be similar to HD DVD (note - not standard lower resolution DVD) - Dave

[aligreto]

Jack Reacher....

[Bogey]

I compared 2 versions of Batman Begins (Bluray and DVD) tonight on a plasma TV. My girlfriend and I could barely tell the difference between them. Are we alone in this? Or is the difference really dependent on the title, or age of the movie in question?

Dave really nailed this down in his post, buddy, but let me add a bit of how I now decide on a mastering:

Criterion BD v. BD or DVD: Criterion always wins out.  They take great pains to get the film as clear as possible, but do not "change" the film.  If the original had a graininess to begin with, they keep it. 

Criterion DVD v. BD or other DVD: Still go with the Criterion.  I just like their work and philosophy for mastering.  Even if a sharper BD came out, I would probably just spend on a different film. In fact, not sure which Criterion movies that are only available on DVD have had someone else do a BD, but unless Criterion were upgrading their own dvd version, I would probably stay satisfied with their original realease.

I am also becoming a big fan of Kino Lorber, as they too do not go over the top with their restoration work.  An example would be The Stranger. Here is part of the review:

Using a 35mm print preserved by the Library of Congress, the folks at Kino—as they often do—have essentially left the print "as-is." This means that you will see bouts of specks and vertical scratches throughout the film—along with a few missing frames—but you'll also see normal 35mm grain patterns, untouched by noise reduction. The result is an image that shows some of the wear and tear of its source material, but definitely looks more filmic and natural. Consequently, the level of clarity is also much higher here, with strong detail in faces and the fabrics of the characters' dresses and herringbone suits. The black and white photography is better balanced as well; contrast is a bit lower and, on the whole, the picture looks—for the lack of a better phrase—less tampered with. It's definitely an improvement. Could it be better? Sure. It's easy to imagine a hypothetical edition where the print damage is removed and the grain structure is preserved—let's call this the Criterion treatment—but this is probably the best The Stranger will look for some time to come.

I am curious about this group of folks and their work as well: Film Noir Foundation in conjunction with UCLA Film & Television Archive.  They are putting out a handful of stuff that I have never seen and reading the reviews it looks like they did their homework as well with restoring this stuff:
https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Run-Newly-Restored-Blu-ray/dp/B01AXGCWCY/ref=pd_sim_74_25?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01AXGCWCY&pd_rd_r=G3SQXCRZSZ35ZGH4N7MN&pd_rd_w=XUlY6&pd_rd_wg=pW2uj&psc=1&refRID=G3SQXCRZSZ35ZGH4N7MN

Now, let's talk reviews.  The site that Dave gave you is my go to as well.  Here are two reasons to read reviews (and decide what works for you) before upgrading a dvd to a bd.  For example, I re-bought all of the Lord of the Rings movies for a low price on blu-ray to try and upgrade my dvd quality prints.  However, after the purchase I found out that Peter Jackson had insisted on that the LOTR blu-rays be given a greenish tint to match the tint that he used in the Hobbit series.  Well crap!  So my new blu-rays, though sharper, did not look like what I saw in the theater.  So, I will keep both....because of my film completest OCD-like behavior that I happily embrace. (See classical piano-phile board members further examples.)  Now I just wish a bd version of the theatrical releases (original....not changed) of Star Wars IV-VI would be released.
Both Peter Jackson and director of photography Andrew Lesnie have confirmed that the new color grade was intentional and was created under their supervision. To those who are upset by these changes in principle, to those who believe a film should remain untouched, I sympathize and, I have to say, I agree to some extent. I would simply remind you that this is Peter Jackson's extended cut; he has always made it clear that his extended cuts are not his Director's Cuts, nor the versions of the films he considers canon or sacrosanct. They are meant to supplement, not supplant, the theatrical cuts. Lest we forget, the extended editions have been an exercise in revisionism since their inception. The fact that the color changes weren't made to the 2010 theatrical version -- effectively preserving Jackson's original vision -- should take some of the sting out of the issue.
So, how many versions does one need?

Another example.  Rio Bravo, a favorite in this household, was released on bd.  It finally came down in price, had so-so reviews, but it WAS BD SO IT HAD TO BE BETTER!  Not so fast mister.  Ethan, our son, watched it and told me do not get rid of the dvd because he said the bd just did not look right.  He said the night scenes seemed messed up and would rather just watch the dvd version in the future.  When I went back to the review, here is what I found about the bd
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rio-Bravo-Blu-ray/437/

Finally, there is the "how long you gonna wait" factor.  I've been waiting for some films to hit the bd release, but in some cases I just could not hold out (His Girl Friday...this I will upgrade because it is my favorite comedy and Criterion did the work).  But read this little snippet about The Alamo:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/052814_1330

So, I bought the dvd, and am fine with it. 

Hope this helps.  My methods above work for me.  In short,  do some homework on your films before purchasing. 

[George]

All very helpful, Bill! Thanks!!

And thanks, Dave. Good to know our eyes were/are working correctly.

The good news for me is that DVD can look damn good and most of my DVDs are not obsolete.

[ritter]

Just back from my neighborhood cinema, where I watched:


Well, 20 years have passed (for all of us  )...but not a bad sequel, at all.

[Turner]

Saw Eisenstein´s Ivan the Terrible I-II in a cinema this afternoon, must be the 2nd time. A lot of innovative visuals, and music by Prokofiev.

Part II, which was banned until after Stalin´s death, is the best, since the picture of the lonely ruler and the psychology of the characters becomes more ambiguous.

It made me curious about the - supposedly even better - never finished Part III, and checking the web, the remaining fragment can be found on you-tube, and it lives up to expectations:


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095387/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQhjPt5XUM

[Karl Henning]

I might have gone for the BD of In a Lonely Place, Dave, except it was not currently in stock,and I saw that the DVD is a single disc.

Only $20 on Amazon Prime, Karl.

The trigger had already been pulled, Bill, and (per your recent post) even though the BD would perforce be better still, my confidence in the Criterion DVD was high.

And so, indeed...

Thread Duty:  In a Lonely Place

To what degree soever I can say that I love desolation, I may just love this movie. Grahame & Bogart give laser-sharp performances, the tone of the camera work is exquisite, the Antheil score is subtle and beautiful. The story is so powerful and dark, that when I first watched it, I wasn't sure I should ever have stomach to watch it again. Which, on reflection, I realized was its superb artistry.

[Karl Henning]

I'm imagining a large ensemble that breaks off into smaller groups...

I'll nip Bill's typo for a title, but I won't appropriate your process. And a fine idea, it is.

[Bogey]

Only $20 on Amazon Prime, Karl.


The trigger had already been pulled, Bill, and (per your recent post) even though the BD would perforce be better still, my confidence in the Criterion DVD was high.

And so, indeed...

Thread Duty:  In a Lonely Place

To what degree soever I can say that I love desolation, I may just love this movie. Grahame & Bogart give laser-sharp performances, the tone of the camera work is exquisite, the Antheil score is subtle and beautiful. The story is so powerful and dark, that when I first watched it, I wasn't sure I should ever have stomach to watch it again. Which, on reflection, I realized was its superb artistry.

Nice! I need to tap it on the shoulder again for another viewing, but I want to sneak the novel in before I do. 

TD:





One of the greatest heist films ever.  Characters are defined down to their atomic structures and the only question I have is, "Who will feed the cat?"  Criterion's work on this is some of the best I have seen.  9/10 (jumped 2) on this one as it keeps climbing my rating ladder with each watch.

[Ken B]

Nice! I need to tap it on the shoulder again for another viewing, but I want to sneak the novel in before I do. 

TD:





One of the greatest heist films ever.  Characters are defined down to their atomic structures and the only question I have is, "Who will feed the cat?"  Criterion's work on this is some of the best I have seen.  9/10 on this one as it keeps climbing my rating ladder with each watch.

Re Lonely Place
The novel is very good and rather different from the movie. The movie is more "suggested by" than "based on" actually. 

Glad to see Jungle growing on you Bill.

[Bogey]

Re Lonely Place
The novel is very good and rather different from the movie. The movie is more "suggested by" than "based on" actually. 

Glad to see Jungle growing on you Bill.

Just noted that it jumped 2!