Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org>
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: <ut5e6r$35ec8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut4kmq$30cq8$1@dont-email.me> <ut4tc8$32ak0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut503v$32sr5$1@dont-email.me> <ut58fe$34ir2$1@dont-email.me>
 <dv9cvihk3v58eo0fufh6uvpjg4iep2jhsf@4ax.com>
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: <dv9cvihk3v58eo0fufh6uvpjg4iep2jhsf@4ax.com>
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
> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/16/2024 1:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> 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.