Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Arthur Lipscomb Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-03-15 (Friday) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:40:59 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:41:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f9305e802253285ea48c33d638b8f0fa"; logging-data="3324296"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wogdeg5n/UisHeU2khTrH1lerjbpwD04=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TkBQnlPfrHNnJkNB/Os7u/tTFjg= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7846 On 3/16/2024 4:21 PM, shawn wrote: > On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:03:08 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb > wrote: > >> On 3/16/2024 1:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> Arthur Lipscomb wrote: >>> >>>> The Frighteners (blu-ray) 1996 horror comedy directed by Peter Jackson >>>> and starring Michael J. Fox as a conman who uses his ability to see and >>>> talk to ghosts to con people until he stumbles upon the ghost of a >>>> serial killer who hasn't let being dead slow him down. >>> >>> I sort of like this movie, but it falls apart in the middle. I've read >>> that the version distributed in the United States is heavily edited of >>> the New Zealand version. I've never seen what Peter Jackson intended. I >>> just looked; there's a director's cut that's 12 minutes longer. Also, >>> there are two different DVDs for home video, the second with >>> inferior audio. >>> >> >> I was hoping for a 4K upgrade. I heard one was on the way over a year >> ago but it never materialized. At least not in the U.S. > > Yeah, sounds like there are some issues that may keep a 4K upgrade > from coming out for some time according to this article (included > below) > > >>> Any idea what version you watched? >>> >> >> I watched the director's cut. I have no idea what was put back in. I >> didn't listen to the commentary. I do remember being less than >> impressed when I saw the movie in the theater. Over time I've more or >> less forced myself to like it. But part of that might be I've been >> watching the director's cut. I think it also helps if you go in knowing >> what to expect. > > I enjoyed the movie enough that I've seen it a couple of times. Though > not in a long time. > >> Like you said, I sort of like it. I honestly don't understand why I >> don't like it more. Everything about it really screams great movie, >> then I actually watch it and the best I can muster is it's OK I guess. >> >> Now that I think about it, maybe the problem is there are no likable >> characters in the movie. I never thought about it before now, but the >> movie really has no one to care about. The movie probably would have >> been significantly better if Michael J. Fox's character was likable. >> Right from the start his character is being a total jerk to his ghost >> helpers and he's just in it to rip people off. And now that I think >> about it some more, the people he targets are basically widows and >> orphans! He has barely any character growth beyond that. I know by the >> end he's supposedly a nice guy, but the movie never justifies that >> change. It just happens because reasons. > > So the problem isn't Michael J Fox, it is how the character is > written. I doubt any of the people you list below would have made the > character that much more likeable without changing what the character > does. > I think every actor brings something different to the table. Assuming they are a good actor. When it comes to Fox, nothing against him, I like his movies, I even have his autograph hanging on a wall, but I just never found that he had much appeal or charisma for lack of a better word. The actors I mentioned would have brought something of themselves to the role and that in and of itself would have been an improvement. >> Who was a mid 90s contemporary who cold have played the part but made >> the character likable? Brad Pitt? Johnny Depp? Keanu Reeves? Will >> Smith? John Cusack? > > > > > https://thedigitalbits.com/item/frighteners-ue-turbine-2022-uhd > > The Frighteners was shot by cinematographers John Blick and Alun > Bollinger on 35 mm film (Super 35) using Arriflex 35 IIC and BL-III > cameras, finished photochemically, and presented in the aspect ratio > of 2.35:1. Turbine’s Ultra HD debut of the film comes sourced from > their new 4K restoration from the original camera negative of both > versions, which have been graded for High Dynamic Range (HDR10 and > Dolby Vision options are available) with the final approval of Peter > Jackson. As many are likely already aware, the computer-generated > effects in The Frighteners were rushed during the film's production > when the film’s release date was moved from October to July, meaning > that the teams behind them had even less time to complete them. > Although they certainly looked good for their time, the texturing and > softness of those effects don’t necessarily hold up to modern > scrutiny. Going into this new 4K presentation, it was the most > apprehensive aspect. Thankfully, fears were grounded as this is not > only a stellar presentation of the film, indeed the best that it’s > ever looked on home video, but the effects blend surprisingly better > than I was expecting. The rest of the presentation is richly-textured > with crystal clear images in both day and nighttime sequences. The new > HDR grades offer far more subtleties and detail in the image, > especially the nuances of the costumes and facial textures, as well as > shadows. Blacks are deep with perfect contrast, never sacrificing > detail or deepening to the point of crush. The film doesn’t offer a > wide spectrum of color, but the variety of green and blue hues, as > well as occasional flashes of red and brown, are often lush in > appearance. Flesh tones are natural and the film is has a more > consistent palette than previous releases. The Director’s Cut footage > also blends more seamlessly. Grain is minimal and tightly-woven, > giving the overall presentation an organic appearance that’s also > stable and clean with a very high bitrate that hovers constantly > between 80 and 100 Mbps. Though Arrow Video is also due to release the > film in 4K Ultra HD sometime in the near future, this presentation > will be incredibly hard to top (though I wouldn’t be surprised if > Turbine shares their presentation with Arrow, as they have done so for > other releases in the past).* > > *According to Turbine, this transfer was a joint project between them > and Universal Pictures Germany, and is therefore subject to a 4 year > holdback, meaning that other companies cannot use it. What that means > for Arrow Video is that if they were to release the film on 4K Ultra > HD in the next 4 years, they've have to either acquire another > transfer or do their own. Thanks! I was vaguely aware that it probably had a release out of the U.S. I often order foreign releases but when I looked there were no options to buy this, so it was a little unclear exactly what the status was.