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

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

Author Topic: Selma Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-08-2015 04:12 PM                        Can't believe it hasn't been started yet. Feb 8, 2015. Carmike Chantilly 13, Montgomery, Al. House 3 Movable side mask, no curtains. Flickering bulb. Only person in the house for the 12:00 matinee. Lots of bleed through of explosions from whatever was next door. Full Disclosure, living in Montgomery, AL we are saturated with civil rights movies and stuff, especially this year. So, more than a little of I've seen all this before in my take on this film. Not bad. Feels more like a Very Important made for TV film, but at least one with an engaging story. As a few people have pointed out, this is a war movie with different weapons and tactics (and the bleed through from next door added to the effect). Nice that it doesn't feel obligated to "tell both sides of the story" or present a white POV. No great white hope like so many non-doc civil rights films. About the standard number of historical inaccuracies as any "Based on a True Story" pic, so LBJ gets the shaft. And George Wallace comes off less evil than he was. Best Picture material? Not for me, but I don't represent the viewing public. One fun thing for locals is that part of the town of Selma is exactly how Selma looks now. Not much has changed, other than some signs. And the Hotel was restored years ago, so probably looks better than it did in 1965. This is the most shallow focused movie I think I've ever seen. I thought it was the curved screen, or the streaky porthole glass. But the end credits were uniformly soft focused. Also very flat and washed out looking. Anybody else have that experience? Oh well, we'll give it B thumbs up stars.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 02-08-2015 10:59 PM                     maybe it was intent of Ava DuVernay and DP Bradford Young but I thought the image through out the entire movie looked washed out and any and all dark scenes had this opaque gauzy look - this was intentional, right?  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-08-2015 11:17 PM                        Sure hope so, but can't understand why. It's like the shallow focus, doesn't add anything to the story and almost looks like a "vasilene lens."  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.