Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hitch (2005)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Hitch (2005)

Author

Topic: Hitch (2005)

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-10-2005 07:22 PM

There's nothing like a crappy movie to start the year off right, and this serves that purpose nicely. The story is lame, the acting is bad, the director is in a coma, the sound mixers are deaf and the biggest offender of them all...the DP is blind. Yes indeedy, not only is the content of this movie crappy, but so are all of the technical aspects of it. You will find yourself wondering why your favorite auditorium just doesn't quite sound as good as it normally does, and you will be making repeated trips to the projector to try and clean the muck off of your lenses, which are as clean as they can be. This movie sucks in every way possible.

I give this one a nice big sloppy 1 out of 5 stars.

| IP: Logged

James R. Hammonds, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 931
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-10-2005 09:57 PM

I thought we started off the year about a month and a half ago?

Oh, and this movie looks lame, so Brad's probably right.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 02-11-2005 01:49 AM

Is the film like the trailer in that it looks kinda hazy? If so, [puke]

.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-11-2005 01:13 PM

Yup, but not quite as bad as those trailers. Still it was an incredible distraction. It is clear that this was not the fault of the printing lab because every once in awhile there is a flashback that has decent contrast without the cloudiness.

Maybe the intent was to make an image with such low contrast that pirates could get a better bootleg off of it. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-11-2005 01:38 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Yup, but not quite as bad as those trailers. Still it was an incredible distraction. It is clear that this was not the fault of the printing lab because every once in awhile there is a flashback that has decent contrast without the cloudiness.

I agree. When some scenes look okay, and others are poor quality, it usually is a problem with the cinematography (although sometimes it's a deliberate artistic decision like using a "fog filter").

| IP: Logged

Jason M Miller
Master Film Handler

Posts: 284
From: Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 02-12-2005 01:15 AM

I thought this movie was depressing, the whole relationship thing and me not in one. [Frown]

(Don't worry I will stop there and not make this into my next LiveJournal) Other then that I thought the movie was ok, it was kind of cheezy in some parts, but over all I thought it was entertaining.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 02-14-2005 08:35 AM

I noticed the cloudiness as well, but wrote it off as being done on purpose. Not that that makes it any less annoying. I also noticed that a few lines of dialog were over modulated when they were recorded. I'm not sure why they didn't fix that in ADR.... or maybe it happened in ADR. Who knows.

In any event, it was the same old tired love story of...

* * * GENERIC LOVE STORY SPOILER ALERT! * * *

Boy meets girl. They fall in love. They have a misunderstanding. They fight and break up. They apologize. They get back together. They live happily ever after.

* * * END GENERIC LOVE STORY SPOILER ALERT! * * *

All that being said, Will Smith was a hoot, and I'm not sure if anyone else could have pulled it off quite like him. Probably not, I suspect. I saw this last night with my girlfriend, and we both laughed and enjoyed it very much. Great date movie. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Chris Hipp
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1462
From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas)
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 02-14-2005 03:12 PM

I thought it was alright. It has a lot of funny scenes and a lot of nice eye candy. It is totally predictable but overall a fun movie.

| IP: Logged

Stewart Anderson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 105
From: Sandy, Utah /United States of America
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 02-14-2005 08:13 PM

I agree with Chris. From the trailer it looks like just a simple funny movie, and I think that's exactly what they delivered. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-16-2005 03:31 PM

Normally I don't see these kinds of movies in theaters unless I'm on a date and the lady picks the show. Our local Carmike was doing a grand re-opening thing to celebrate completion of their stadium retrofit. As part of the event, Carmike donated the day's box office and concessional sales take to the Army Family Relief Fund. I wanted to help and this was the only show currently playing there I had any passing interest of watching. Anyway......

The movie wasn't "great" but I thought it had enough funny moments to be decent. Kevin James was the best thing about it. Some parts of the show made me think about a few ex-girlfriends. Some of those memories are funny (but not all).

I do agree, the cinematography really sucked ass. Some scenes, such as the one with Will Smith falling asleep on the lady's couch had about as much contrast and shadow detail as a Xerox of a newspaper photo. Pretty dim and weak looking.

I have the strong suspicion this movie was really shot just "good enough" for a 1.85:1 release, but blown up for 2.39:1 at the last minute. Another reason why I wonder about this is a few CGI scenes were of really low quality as well. The edge detail of masked foreground elements really stank.

Bad CGI example: Take a look at a few of the shots where Will Smith and Eva Mendez are riding those Polaris jet skis in the Hudson River and Upper New York Bay. You see the actors in the foreground, but the actual background is removed and the lower Manhattan skyline is dropped in via CGI. The masking/rotoscoping work is probably the most noticably blurry and messy I've seen since "The Mummy Returns".

You might ask, "why would a studio go to the trouble of doing CGI work on some jet ski stuff in New York Bay." Well, would you want to ride one of those things there? I wouldn't. I even thought about that before the two actors got onto those water craft. I'd hate to wipe out a jet ski in New York Bay. Crash in there and you might come out of the water wearing a few "Coney Island Whitefish" and be stuck with a few hypodermic syringes.

| IP: Logged

Richard Greco
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1180
From: Plant City, FL
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 03-02-2005 12:21 AM

I liked it.

Allegra Cole and Caseyh were really hot!!
Eva Mendez was smokin'!!!

I thought it was entertaining all around.

3.5/5

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.