|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Interstellar
|
Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 11-06-2014 07:12 PM
United Artists Colorado Center Stadium 9 IMAX (15/70)
11/5/14 7pm
I liked it but didn't love it. Lots of cool stuff. Lots of interesting stuff. But dramatically and emotionally it should have been stronger. I wasn't ever really engaged the way I was in The Dark Knight. It reminded me a lot of Inception, though liked Interstellar more.
I loved seeing it in 70MM. The image was beautifully detailed and as steady as any digital presentation. I've never had a problem with aspect ratio changes - I generally find them to be effective, but I found myself not noticing every change during Interstellar.
Overall, I was very happy with the audio. It went from booming to dead silent and I never had trouble understanding dialog.
I sat in the center on the fourth row.
I'm picky, but there are others pickier than me who might find more faults with the Colorado Center's presentation. But from comments I overheard afterwards, others in the crowd seemed very happy with the picture and audio as well. (They also seemed to like the film more than me.)
HOWEVER, there were problems. Below is what I submitted at http://www.interstellarmovie.com/quality.
quote:
Picture/ Other:
Way too much ambient light on the screen from exit lighting. Distracted terribly in dark scenes, incl. space. Please have them mask it. Looked great otherwise - thanks for offering hi-res film in CO.
quote:
Audio/ Other:
Sound was great except for a semi-regular popping sound. Please have them address this.
The ambient light issue seemed new. I do not remember noticing that at my last three visits (TDK, Avatar, TDKR). And can anyone explain a likely cause for the popping?
I will let you know what Christopher says when he gets back to me about my feedback.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-14-2014 09:35 AM
Screening #1
Cinema: LOOK Cinemas, Dallas
Screen: #1, Evolution
Format: 5-perf 70mm, Datasat Digital Sound
Presentation Quality
-----Projection: Flawless
-----Sound: Good, but could have been louder
Screening #2
Cinema: Bullock History of Texas Museum IMAX, Austin
Format: 15-perf 70mm, True IMAX
Presentation Quality
-----Projection: Flawless
-----Sound: Dymamic but with over-driven sub-bass
Rating: 3 stars out of 4
This review is about a week late. Didn't have enough time to write/post it during this past weekend.
I really wanted to like Interstellar more, and I'm kind of reaching to give it 3 stars instead of 2.5 or 2.75. 70mm was the big selling point for me not only to see it in the theater, but drive a considerable distance to see it in 70mm equipped theaters. Sadly, this movie may be one of the last movies to be commercially shown in 70mm -a morbid selling point. If Interstellar had been a DCP-only release there's a good chance I might have just waited to see it on Blu-ray.
Anyone interested in this movie already knows the basic story premise. The movie sort of gets going in fits and starts, but gets bogged down at times by lengthy dialog and forced melodrama. Anne Hathaway's character hits crew members with a speech about trusting love that came totally out of nowhere and still makes no sense to me after seeing it twice. There's other things that don't make sense or are flat out implausible. You basically have to unplug your brain and simply enjoy the spectacle.
Christopher Nolan deserves praise for pushing 15/70mm film and 5/70mm film. How many movie releases have done 15/70mm and 5/70mm in the original release? I can't think of any others.
While Interstellar provided at least some hype to 70mm, the movie's cinematography (by Hoyte Van Hoytema) could have been better. That's unfortunate considering this movie is supposed to hype spectacle and 70mm film. When I think of material best to hype 70mm I think of bright footage with deeply saturated color, tack sharp detail and very fine grain. Nolan muted the color palette even in settings where it didn't need to be greatly muted. A lot of sets were lit in a dark, depressing manner. I can understand the need to shoot many of the IMAX scenes with very shallow depth of field (opening the aperture to get in as much light as possible). I don't think they needed to do that with 35mm. Deeper focus might have prevented what I feel are some goofs that occurred with the 'scope footage. There's one scene of Cooper reacting to 20 years worth of video messages. It's meant to be a big emotional scene, but I was distracted by bad it looked.
Plenty has been said about the sound mix, mainly to do with dialog obscured by other sounds or the music score. The mix had some good qualities, but we more often tend to notice things that are wrong rather than right with a sound mix.
Random Observations:
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
When Dr. Mann was unzipped out of his hibernation coffin, and it turned out to be Matt Damon, I whispered "Matt Damon" in a high pitched voice -a reference to the parody of Damon in Team America: World Police
Hans Zimmer's score was overbearing at times. The pipe organ stuff had me thinking about the end of Akira. Not many memorable melodies either. I liked the music that was on the 4th movie trailer, which turned out to be an instrumental called "Final Frontier" by Thomas Bergersen. Too bad that wasn't in the movie.
The changeover at Reel 8A sounded a bit like a jump cut in the 5/70 print. The same spot of the movie sounded fine in IMAX, but there might not have been at a reel change at that point of the movie on the IMAX print.
The end credits were composed in a different way in the IMAX version, using the entire frame. The credits appeared sharper than they did in 5/70. This is despite the fact the 5/70 setup at LOOK was focused properly. BTW, I have seen a lot soft/crappy looking end credit runs in 2K and 4K. I suspect some odd standards of practice at work in post production. With certain digital shows I also suspect people farting with the focus knob to hide the pixel grid (it's either that or they have a soft projection lens).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-14-2014 05:20 PM
There are no aspect ratio changes in either the standard DCP release or the 35mm and 5/70mm releases. There are aspect ratio changes in both the Digital and 70mm IMAX releases. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises had the same thing going.
Personally, I hate those switches. In my opinion, a movie should be in exactly ONE aspect ratio and the screen should be properly masked to exactly match that aspect ratio.
I've seen the movie about 2.5 times now and although it's not bad, most things said about it are probably true, it's most probably not Nolan's strongest movie. It's a rather predictable story with some rather gaping plot holes, questionable science, a boring, unbelievable and overly melodramatic love story and a weak sound mix.
The visuals are mostly great, but are lacking in vibrancy. I liked how they made gravimetric lensing look believable for once. Going trough a worm-hole without big lens flares and space tunnelly stuff was a good thing for once.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Hans Zimmer's score was overbearing at times. The pipe organ stuff had me thinking about the end of Akira. Not many memorable melodies either. I liked the music that was on the 4th movie trailer, which turned out to be an instrumental called "Final Frontier" by Thomas Bergersen. Too bad that wasn't in the movie.
With Nolan it's always Two Steps From Hell in the trailers and Hans Zimmer in the end result. Thomas Bergersen & co. have been in a lot of trailers, but their music is just a bit too bombastic for broad use in features. Then again, I hate the modern trend not to put the actual score in the final trailers...
For me, it was rather hard to connect with Hans Zimmer's score on this one. A failed attempt to do away the bombastic strings and deep notes of the previous Nolan collaborations. In some ways this score reminded me too much of the original soundtrack of Moon (2009) by Clint Mansell. The heavier parts felt like going to church...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-15-2014 12:48 AM
quote: Geoff Jones[/quote
Marcel, do the aspect ratio changes bug you in films like The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Superman, and The Road Warrior?
You can add The Grand Budapest Hotel to that list, too. What is particularly annoying is that the entire movie is in 1.37 apart from two very brief bookend scenes totaling 2-3 minutes, which are letterboxed 'scope. The entire DCP is in a 1.85 container, meaning that no shot in the entire movie fills the entire screen area as masked.
As for Interstellar as a movie, Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography pulled off some memorable visuals which more than justified the large format film. I remember thinking after Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy that he could well be the next Roger Deakins or John Alonzo, and this movie bore that hunch out. He can light a medium long shot in a way that has you picking the character out in the frame and concentrating on him/her, and not many cinematographers can do that.
The problem is that it that the movie has does not have much of a story (apart from one that preaches a political message that I'd have to violate the forum rules to give my thoughts on), and the performance of the leads and the direction are very competent, but in ten years' time I won't be remembering this movie for anything apart from the much-hyped release on film.
Furthermore, having seen the AFI previews of Selma and American Sniper earlier this week, they both blow this pic to smithereens for script, acting and direction (Selma, in particular, was a very, very strong feature directing debut - she can pace big crowd scenes and tension/confrontation scenes between two or three characters, and there are many Hollywood directors with 10-15 features under their belt who have trouble doing both). I suspect that when they're released, Interstellar will quickly be forgotten except by film technology enthusiasts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-16-2014 05:04 PM
I guess I do have to agree with Brad. Probably due to the simple fact how our vision works, the change in height is far more visible and distracting than the change in width. And that's what happening in IMAX. Every time you switch back from the massive (overly high) IMAX frame to the cramped (at least in those presentations) scope frame, it's like a message: You can go to sleep now, everything that follows now is sub-par and not worthy of expensive 65mm film.
quote: Geoff Jones
Marcel, do the aspect ratio changes bug you in films like The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Superman, and The Road Warrior?
The Horse Whisperer is a perfect example of a movie where it bugged the hell out of me... because, what's the point? I've almost forgotten about Galaxy Quest, but that one I can forgive. It was used as some kind of gimmick in an already wacky movie. I don't know what Superman movie you're referring to, the "original" one back from 1978? I may need to refresh my memory on that one. And The Road Warrior, as far as I remember, only had one change. It began with a piece of news coverage, which would not be shot at an extreme wide angle. Such things I can gladly forgive. A more recent example is The Wolf of Wall Street, which opens with an advertorial video shot in something close to 1.77.
quote: Leo Enticknap
You can add The Grand Budapest Hotel to that list, too. What is particularly annoying is that the entire movie is in 1.37 apart from two very brief bookend scenes totaling 2-3 minutes, which are letterboxed 'scope. The entire DCP is in a 1.85 container, meaning that no shot in the entire movie fills the entire screen area as masked.
Wes Anderson sure is a strange fellow. His previous movie was shot in 16mm or post-processed to something made to look like 16mm none the less. Still, this aspect ratio switcheroo being some kind of weirdo artistic choice didn't really bug me as much as it does in other movies, probably because it's part of the concept of being weird and non-standard. I was about the only one on the floor laughing when I first saw that movie, the weirdness doesn't seem to work equally effective on all sheeple.
Another one for the list is Life of Pi. The DCP is in flat and most of the movie is too. But there are scenes in there, letter boxed in scope and even 2.0 or pillar boxed to 1.33. This movie is also pushing for 3D, making the changes even more evident. The aspect ratio changes in this movie really freaked me out.
My conception is that the presentation itself should distract as little as possible from the actual movie. The primary purpose is still to convey a story from the big screen to the viewer. I don't see just any added gadgetry as an automatic improvement, technology should be used to increase immersion (that word again), and not to create additional distractions.
So, yeah, I do still think a movie should just choose the most appropriate aspect ratio, one that best matches the visuals of the movie, works within the given budget and just stick with that from the beginning to the very end. Stuff like news footage might be forgiven, but this usually only lasts a few seconds. The same for artistic weirdness, although this trick gets old really fast, so please don't overuse it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic