Newsstand: November 9, 2009
Rocket Talk: When's the TTC Going to Roll Out More Fare Collection Methods?
Zack Taylor in Disney Mama Drama
The Daily Photoist: November 9, 2009
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
We don’t think we’ve ever lead with the same film two weeks in a row, but there’s a first time for everything. Did you get a chance to see Blade Runner: The Final Cut this week? We did. It was amazing. We really can’t think of a film we’d rather lead with (and there’s some good stuff this week). If you didn’t get a chance to see it, consider yourself massively lucky, because it’s still on at the Regent. Basically, you have to see it. It’s a cinema experience that you’ll regret missing for the rest of your life, probably.
It’s an interesting film as well, because this week’s heavily advertised "cinema experience" is Beowulf, a weird-looking sort of CGI film with real actors’ freaky uncanny valley faces mapped onto freaky uncanny valley bodies for an extreme IMAX 3-D experience. Although we haven’t seen Beowulf outside of the (extensive) trailers, watching Blade Runner made us realize that Beowulf looks terrible! Apparently, model work from 25 years ago is still better than current CGI. Yes, they touched up the model work in the final cut with CGI, but clearly that’s what CGI should be used for, then. Because there’s something about model work that’s still missing from CGI.
And yes—we’re well aware that this argument has been floating around since the Star Wars prequels. But, oh man! We didn’t realize how extensive a folly CGI was until we watched Blade Runner.
Also opening this week are some home-grown productions: Citizen Duane, which we noted had "one fantastic, creative and humourous scene," but that “there’s only the one, though"; and Breakfast With Scot, which Johnnie Walker called "a family movie that's genuinely funny and endearing."
This weekend in festivals, there’s the Brazilian Film Festival, and the Rendezvous with Madness Film Festival and Reel Asian Film Festival (covered here) conclude. Our Cinematheque Ontario pick is La Chinoise.
Also opening: Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, which actually has a lamer name than a throwaway Simpsons’ joke (Troy McClure’s The Contrabulous Fabtraption of Professor Horatio Hufnagel), but was filmed in Toronto; Terror’s Advocate, Love in the Time of Cholera and Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. According to NOW’s Cameron Bailey, Sidney Lumet's Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead opens with "Marisa Tomei bent over on all fours while Philip Seymour Hoffman administers his grunting, bulky self to her from behind." We never, ever want to see that film. Ever.
And one film we should have given much more of a mention to: Brian De Palma’s Redacted. Eye’s Adam Nayman gives it better coverage than we ever could.
If there’s one film you should go and see this week that isn’t Blade Runner, though, it’s the screening of Eraserhead on Tuesday night at the Fox (2236 Queen East). It’s been a while since it’s been shown in theaters here, and like Blade Runner, it's one hell of a cinema experience.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
please refrain from crtiquing movies you have not seen. not cool.
Beowulf is currently at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, and all the reviews I've read by people who have seen it in IMAX 3D say that is is extraordinary. Perfect? No, but damn good. Except for the freaky dead CGI eyes. And visually, Ray Winstone is unrecognizable as Beowulf. Incredible.
But you are correct about Bladerunner. It rocks.
I don't think I really critiqued Beowulf. I just mentioned that looking at the freaky CGIness of it compared to Blade Runner made me realise that I really, really like model work. And don't really like CGI.
Something "not cool" I think though is quoting Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic averages as if consensus actually means anything when it comes to if a film is good or not.
I would not be proud if I got 73% on a paper. I wouldn't angst over it, but I certainly wouldn't see it as evidence of any real academic merit.
Eraserhead! On the big screen! Yes!
Blade Runner was beautiful! Think I will see it again. I might go and see Beowulf too - the 3D part makes me sort of giddy but the trailer makes the film look a sequel to 300 starring a not very Ray Winstone looking Ray Winstone.
true, true, David. but the geeks on RT seem to have good taste in general. i rarely disagree with ratings on there (Shawshank 88%, Gigli 6%, No Country for Old Men 95%).
i do miss model work too. it does look so much more 3D than CGI.
but i already knew i wasn;t cool. never have been, never will be.
Are they showing Blade Runner in 35 or digitally? Also, what are the prices at the Regent like?
Digitally. It's amazing looking. Seriously - crisp and clean. Like watching a whole new film. It will give you eye-boners.
Nah, it's definitely NOT digital - it's got loads of sprocket holes. Great print though. $10 a ticket at the Regent.
Some mixed reviews for Sidney Lumet, but the people that like it REALLY like it.
Are you sure? I thought it was being shown at the Regent specifically because it's a Theatre D digital cinema. It was suspiciously clean for something that was on ordinary film. I'm pretty sure it was a digital print.
...Even if it wasn't, though, it still looks amazing. So what does it matter?
The most I ever pay to see a movie is $7.75 (member and student price for the limited runs and other super-special presentations at Cinematheque). Because I've never seen Blade Runner, and I've been waiting to catch it in 35 for years, I'd almost certainly shell out $10 to see it in a brand new print. If it's in digital, though, I dunno... $10 is kinda steep.
Jonathan, have you ever watched anything in a digital cinema?
Because... It's not like watching a 640x480 DivX blown up on a cinema screen or something.
It looks really good!
Jonathan, I'll give you the $2.25 difference. It is so good - looks amazing and sounds incredible. You should definitely see it. Also The Regent is a gorgeous cinema and not one I normally get to visit so seeing a film there was something of a treat too.
ummm, jonathan, you've waited to see bladerunner before it was even filmed or knew about it being made??? woow, that's dedication.
The films I've seen on a large screen from a digital HD Christie projector look absolutely fantastic...the colours are super-rich and it only takes a few minutes to get used to the difference. If I had the choice, I'd go with digital. I'd love to see Blade Runner that way.
No, AnarchX, I said "I've been waiting to catch it in 35 [mm] for years," not "I've been waiting to catch it for 35 years."
I've probably seen dozens of films projected from Christies over the past few years, and, to be honest, the quality is inconsistent. Some movies look great, others look pretty crummy.
But as a general rule, if something has been shot on video, then chances are that it will be best on video. If it was shot on film, then a film print is invariably better. It gets tricky with digital remasterings of 35 mm films, of course, but there's no reason the studio couldn't have splurged and struck a new print.
Besides, I think paying $10 for someone to press "play" is silly.
Right. Because that $10 doesn't also go towards the upkeep of the venue or paying the other staff there. I'd rather give my $10 to a rep theatre than a big box one.
doh! sorry bout that, jonathan! i must have been drunk when i read your comment ....
Yeah godforbid that $10 go towards owning and maintaining a beautiful theatre like the Regent or securing the rights to show Blade Runner or paying people's (other than the "projectionist's") wages.
I don't often call people cheapskates since I like to think I'm something of a spendthrift myself but, man, it's 10 freaking dollars... don't be such a cheapskate.
"Because that $10 doesn't also go towards the upkeep of the venue or paying the other staff there."
Well, of course theatres have expenses beyond those associated with 35 mm film, but I'm not fond of the idea of paying more to see a video presentation than I do to see film at theatres such as Cinematheque and the Bloor.
"I'd rather give my $10 to a rep theatre than a big box one."
Certainly. But I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. (For the record, I rarely see movies first-run.)
"Yeah godforbid that $10 go towards owning and maintaining a beautiful theatre like the Regent or securing the rights to show Blade Runner or paying people's (other than the 'projectionist's') wages."
My understanding is that the rep cinema facet of the Regent (like the Royal) operates at a loss and that all of the profit comes from private rentals and its daytime use as a post-production facility. Which I suppose is beside the point, the point being that I think that ten dollars is too much money to charge to see a shot-on-film movie on video.
Thankfully, however, this is not the case with Blade Runner: The Final Cut at the Regent: I saw it today, and it was a stunning, recently-struck 35 mm print (with top-notch projection), worth every one of the ten dollars.
Oi,
1. The print is indeed 35mm. They were originally intending to play a digital print but it fell through. I saw it this Sunday and the sounds and picture is quite excellent definitely worth your $10.
2. There is an important distinction between video projection and digital projection. Video projection is a dvd projection onscreen. Digital projection is of higher quality is projected from a digital projector.