Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Domino

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Domino

Author

Topic: Domino

Don Anderson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 312
From: West Bend, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-14-2005 02:38 AM

This movie KICKS ASS!!!!!! The two hours went by quickly. Awesome use of color, and lots of grainy film!!! Interesting storyline, well developed characters. Ian and Brian from 90120 were a riot. Nice and violent, just the way I like it! [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 10-14-2005 10:15 AM

What's 90120 ?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 10-14-2005 10:27 AM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
What's 90120 ?

The mail zip code for Beverly Hills, California:

http://www.vidiot.com/BH90210/

quote:
Veteran cast members returning will be Jennie Garth, Tori Spelling, Luke Perry, Brian Austin Green, Ian Ziering, Vincent Young, Lindsay Price, Vanessa Marcil, Daniel Cosgrove and Joe E. Tata.

BEVERLY HILLS, 90210 is enjoyed by a wide audience both in the United States and abroad. It is seen by an estimated 200 million people around the world and ranks as one of the most watched American television shows internationally.

BEVERLY HILLS, 90210 is a Spelling Television Inc production. Aaron Spelling, E. Duke Vincent, Paul Waigner and John Eisendrath are the executive producers. Laurie McCarthy and Doug Steinberg are the co-executive producers. Brian Austin Green is a producer.

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 10-14-2005 10:31 AM

It's as fun as "True Romance" from the same director. [thumbsup]

The show on Fox was "90210".

| IP: Logged

Don Anderson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 312
From: West Bend, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-14-2005 11:26 AM

Yup, ya got me.....90210. Hey, it was late when I posted this [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 10-14-2005 06:45 PM

Century Orleans 18
Friday 14 OCT 05 2:20pm
Screen #8, $6.25 matinee

DCMI screen check.

Not bad for what it was, though reels 6 & 7 dragged a bit for me. Not a complete waste of time.

Great photography and a good looking print.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 10-15-2005 02:39 PM

If you thought, Tony Scott's Man on Fire has postproduction editing excess, that movie's got nothing on this. It's like Tony Scott , the geezer, is desperate to come across as some young hip director,except he uses a lot of 90s style in excess. He throws everything on the screen and of course, some of it will be great, and some of it will suck. Light a matchstick and it is shown from 4 different angles with sound effects that would put a Michael Jackson arm waving sound effect to shame. If he just toned it down 20% or so, it would still be plenty enough and not distract from the narrative. At least the shakiness and the quick edits settle down in the middle of the movie a little bit.

Having said that, I do like little stylistic flourishes like the use of captions here as he did in Man on Fire. It kind of brings you back into the story just as you get numbed by the stylistic excess. I also liked the movie overall and I think I will like it better on cable when i see it again because the shaky effect gets minimized on the small screen, and having seen the movie once you can appreciate the things that Tony Scott does do well. I liked Man on Fire more when I saw it on my HBO HD. There were some really fun moments in that movie that I did not appreciate the first time because of all the distractions.

Tom Waits can never be boring, but I thought his cameo amounts to an unintentional parody of his public perception. "oh let's put kooky looking Tom Waits with that voice in a scene and even if that scene is full of crap, it will somehow come off as so deep because it's Tom Fucking Waits."

Yeah I still liked the movie.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-15-2005 03:38 PM

This was fun, but disposable, entertainment. I doubt that anyone will remember it in twenty years.

I made the mistake of sitting fairly close to a large screen (~1.5 screen heights away) and the handheld shots, gratuitous zooms, and quick cuts were difficult to take. If I had sat farther back, this wouldn't have been a problem.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 10-21-2005 07:54 PM

Thanks, Tony Scott for another flash-apertured seizure-cammed piece of headache-inducing unwatchable shit. [puke]

It might have been a good story. I couldn't tell.

| 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.