dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2023 10:55:47 GMT -5
Hi Metallo
I definitely agree that Furie upheld the essential characteristics of what makes Supes....Supes. An area where Snyder has failed miserably. The problem for me was in the contrast of the tone of the material(of SIV) relative to prior entries.
Furie specifically stated that he wanted SIV to harken back to STM. So he had already set out his creative stall or intent.
But if we use Hackman as an example:
Under Donner, Hackman applied a subtle, almost sarcastic tone,yet at the same time, fully aware of his physical limitations relative to Supes. There is a brief reaction from an awe inspired Hackman, it's barely a few seconds long, blink and you will miss it....as Supes breaks through the door to the lair. It's a very clever insertion from Baird and Donner, highlighting that aspect of.......verismilitude!
So we as the audience get the idea instantly:
Luthor is toying with something that's potentially out of his control.....as if he is out of his depth.
So when Lex says to Otis:
"Get the gentleman's cape"
....it's almost like he is pretending to be cool!
And whilst it's funny....there is also a distinct sense of unease with the 2 bad guys.....as if Supes could blow them away at any second. That little glance from Reeves at Beattie which induces the:
"I don't think he wants me to, Mr Luthor"!
....confirms it!
And to be fair you even got it in SIII ; when Supes says to Gus and co:
"You could have fooled me Mister"!
The look on Prior's face of: "oh s**t"!
....was reminiscent of the reaction from Lex and Otis in STM.
One could even argue that Snyder got that beat, when Lex confronts Supes on the roof after showing the Martha mug shots!
But in SIV that sense of gravitas was completely missing. I never felt Lex was afraid or in awe of Supes at all. Which ended up diminishing the dramatic impact of the interaction between the two protagonists.
When Luthor whispers to Supes:
"He's(NM) not one of your great thinkers"!
.....the way Hackman delivers it.....just feels so jokey.....as if the whole upcoming fight is not to be taken seriously anyways, no matter how good the effects would have been!
Blame goes not just to Furie, but to Rosenthal,Konner and quite frankly Reeve himself.
These were the kind of scenarios that Donner wanted to avoid with STM in the first place.
However, I do like how Hackman, after saying:
"partying(or parting?) is inevitable"
....then turns to NM with a serious face:
"destroy Superman"!
We needed way more of that in the dialogue only scenes. So for me it's not a case of budget or time, but skill with very delicate material....which Furie and his creative team team did not have.
As for Snyder's directorial skills in general, be it with Dawn Of The Dead,300,Watchmen,Sucker Punch, Supes or Army Of The Dead....he can't elicit any real spontaneity from his actors. They are indeed,like stones. I have never seen The Owls Of Ga'Hool or even his DC version of JL.....but my instincts tell me it won't be any different!
So for me Furie's sin was to contradict Donner's premise....whilst claiming to uphold it in the scenes which needed no VFX.
Snyder on the other hand ,simply conformed to his tried and trusted formula of slo mo(ok MoS held back on slow moing everything) kick booty, CG top heavy action with dour and uninspired acting - lol!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 30, 2023 16:13:20 GMT -5
Was going to add that whilst I will always regard SIV to be an abomination of a movie.......one thing it did do, was preserve Supe's ethos.....basically saving people and doing good(the Russian cosmonauts,the underground train,the folks on the great wall of China,the Italians at the volcano,Lacy in outer space???!! ect ect.).
But that was also standard for the Supes/Salks/Reeve series up until that point.....so it's not like Furie broke new ground by having Supes perform said deeds. But at least he preserved them....so that's one thing he failed to s***w up!
What's rather sad is that newer interpretations of the character(here's looking at you Zack!) have kinda forgotten that aspect(or at the very least- distorted it).
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 30, 2023 15:58:17 GMT -5
Can't argue with you prefering the action sequences in SIV to SIII , bud.
Suffice to say it's the other way round for me!
But more importantly, the acting and directing in IV in the live action material ,was the true nail in the coffin for this endeavour, IMHO.
Even if I stripped out all the effects from STM,II and III...there would still be enough meat in those actual live action sequences(just predominant dialogue scenes ) to carry the narrative.
But IMHO,that's sadly not the case with SIV .
It's an empty carcass, unfortunately.
I felt that way as a 13 year old in 1987.
And nothing has changed.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 30, 2023 11:50:33 GMT -5
Hey CAM....sweet...you saw Watership Down in the theater! And in the States too.....wow.....cos' it's a very quintassential "British " type story.....but with an unsually hard edge...specially for an animated kiddy flick. Did not see it until 1984 on Video, meself....was blown away. Lost count of the amount of times I have seen that one.
Also came out in 1978!.....and apart from Pirahna....Watership Down was probably the only other fantasy film to compete with the mighty STM at the box office that year! How times have changed!
Interesting you mentioned Milos Foreman. I have not seen Hair.
But I did see Amadeus in the theater in 1984, initially I was very reluctant to go.....dragged along by me mum who loves classical music......but man once I was in the seat I loved it.....fantastic movie!.....one of the best ever IMHO. Once it came out on home video in 85'.....me pap did a duplicate from the rented copy(we had 2 video machines- lol!)....and watched Amadeus into the ground. It is available on Blu.....but it's the director's cut which is not as good as the theatrical IMHO, but hopefully a UHD will be forethcoming soon.
Also watched A Passage To India(I am also half Indian for the record) in the cinema in 84' and again on home video(doing the pirate copy thing again).....back in the day when you had to wait at least 6 months and maybe even a year before movies were available for home viewing! Outside of the 50's/60s/70s/European New Wave stuff , courtesy of me mum and some hard hitting Southern Indian(i.e not Bollywood) from me pap , that they both got me into as a kid.....Amadeus and Passage To India were my introduction to "serious" Anglo American big budget cinema.
But apart from Amadeus and Passage To India......also gave Supergirl countless views on home video in 1985. Sorry!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 30, 2023 10:56:29 GMT -5
Hi CAM
Nice catch, highlighting the fact that Reeve had been cited in the press a couple of times ,during the 1981-82 seasons, saying the narrative arc of the Clark/Lois relationship had come full circle and that there was nowhere left to go with it.
That was before SIII came out!
So as you astutely observed,by the time of SIV, some bad feelings may have still been lingering.......
Ofcourse, given our discussions on this thread, and because I had to cite the timings of one or 2 scenes so I could answer ATP, .....thought I'd pop in the old DVD from 2003/4 for SIV and give it a quick spin(sorry it's not worthy of a Blu Ray or UHD viewing - I know, you guys think I am waging some kind of jihad against SIV - lol!) But one tends to forget just how short SIV is! Hour and a half and done!
But it gave me a chance to re-appraise(or not!- lol!) the acting.
Sheesh!
The actor who plays the american arms dealer, William Hootkins, was given waaay too much latitude to play his character over the top.......over the top?.....he was practically in the statosphere! - lol!
(By the way, love the actor :Star Wars,Raiders,Batman to name but a few.......)
But Furie completely misdirected him in SIV.
When Luthor opens the blinds Hootkins blatters out: "The sun is hurting my eyes!"
Then later on with Luthor again: "We have been thinking about increasing your commission"!
Hootkin's deliveries are just so campy that even Batman 66' looks serious by comparison!
Furie is the director and it's his duty to inform the actors on tone,pacing,intuition and performance.
But it looks like Furie was absent at the wheel, allowing all sorts of eccentricities to punctuate various actor's performances.
As for Pillow.....he comes across as very nice person in interviews and I am glad that people appreciate the physicallity he brought to Nuclear Man. But the fact of the matter is that the poor chap cannot act. Sure the crappy costume did not help......but a decent actor would have given something for Chris to play off from.
As it was.....it's just hilarious to watch Nuclear Man declare:
"Destroy Superman"(even with Hackman's overdub!).
"If you will not tell me...I will hurt people!"
Lol!!!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 29, 2023 17:33:31 GMT -5
Hi CAM
Yeah I know.....I am familiar with what could have been the mitigating circumstances behind the scenes that may have contributed to compromising what ended up on screen. And those are valid arguments. Totally agree with you.
Obviously all the post production stuff can be forgiven. I read one report where Furie left the project before the actual editing was done! See if I can dig it out. Usually the editing is a collaboration between the director and editor.
I remember Zemekis saying that because he was occupied with shooting Back To The Future III.....that he could not be in the editing booth as much for the completion of Part II.....which may have effected the rather frenetic and haphazard nature of that film.
But that notwithstanding, with regards to SIV....the tone of the acting is way off. I can't believe Reeve,Hackman and Kidder just subscribed to this level of performance,given their substantial experience with the Supes franchise ,and as actors in general.
The scene when Hackman introduces himself to the arms dealers at 34:31:
The 3 guys pull their guns out on Luthor in such a Batman 66' way that I can't believe Hackman did not reign in Furie and say: "under Donner that's not the way we would act out such a scene"
I could go on......
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 29, 2023 17:15:22 GMT -5
Hi ATP
The scene with Hackman's overacting bit: It's at 37:04 where he says: "a number with a lot of zeros behind it"
He then raises his hands to accentuate said number and does this weird expression. He never did anything comparable to that under Donner.
He does something less egregious but still over the top in a kinda Batman 66' way at: 1:07:40
...when he is talking to the arms dealers:
"My first official act is to say......you're fired"!
To think of an analogous situation in STM:
When he yelled twice at Miss Tesmacher .......
The first one in Supe's presense was just a teaser - done with restraint but still downright authoratative! So much so that Reeve looks up suddenly ,shocked, almost not expecting it - lol!
.....the second one when Luthor realises the rocket has been taken over by Supes, is a no B.S scream with anger.
But in SIV , Hackman's shouting just comes across as buffoonish. Maybe that was Furie's intent....but it does not work for me. Rendered even more egregious , given the comparison with Hackman's performance under Donner.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 29, 2023 5:44:58 GMT -5
hehe
I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is!
I am probably in the extremist zone as I truly hate it.
And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance.
I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision. Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation. Same for Donner or Lester.
But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction. That's fantastic at face value.
But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for. Actors taking their characters seriously? Nope. Versimilitude. Nope. A sense of passion and joy for the work. Nope. An attempt at perfection. Absolutely not! They did not even try!
I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them.
The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner. But it's far, far, far too little.
The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen: Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch.
I could go on.....
So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO. Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter).
Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time. No different to SIII or most productions, really. And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff. It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says: "Clark....you gotta go with your gut". Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too. All Furie had to do was say "cut"! Try again.
But no. We got what we got. Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all.
The scene where Hackman tells Reeve: "Why don't you smell the roses?" The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"!
Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself: "Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"!
Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 28, 2023 17:12:52 GMT -5
I am definitely a hater of this one.....maybe even virulently so!
My solution would be simple.
To not write(let alone rewrite) Superman IV at all!
As I said before, should never have been made ,period - just like Last Crusade(I know that's not a popular opinion),Crystal Skull, Dial Of Destiny, Aliens 3,4,Prometheus,Covenent and Terminators 3,4,5 and 6.
But all of those are still head and shoulders above SIV(Ok...I have not even seen Dial Of Destiny......but if it can reach the depths of SIV........). Maybe Aliens 3 was veering into SIV territory....but it still had some ooomph to it.
I love Reeve as much as the next guy(platonically speaking of course!)......but he gets too much of a free pass in his rather uninspired contribution to the absolutely diabolical quality of this movie.
His performance was so so as far as I am concerned. Kidder and Hackman were far worse. As for Pillow......jeez ...the less said about that guy's acting chops the better.....even Cavill looks like Lawrence Olivier compared to this guy!
Hackman would shoot the superb Missippi Burning with Willem Defoe within a few months of SIV.....and his performance for that flick is like night and day when compared to SIV.
Of course , Furie has to take the lion's share of the blame for not remotely being capable of exacting any meaningful performances from any of the leads.
Tellingly, it's the scenes which did not need any VFX which are so poorly directed that it's hard to believe that this was the same guy that gave us the excellent The Ipcress File 23 years prior.
Sure the UN stuff is not bad but still flat as heck.
In an era(outside of Bond) where any major movie franchise was a trilogy......Supes should have remained that way too.
Sorry....a bit of a rant......but there are no redeeming qualities to SIV at all IMHO.
Reeve said it best to Charlie Rose in 1992:
Sweep SIV under the rug!
Pretend it never existed.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 28, 2023 11:27:52 GMT -5
"Every time a drunk sobers up (after watching Man Of Steel ).......he'll be drinking Webster coffee......!"
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 28, 2023 5:56:23 GMT -5
crown & CAM " I am going to destroy the entire Columbian coffee crop right down to the last bean!"
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 26, 2023 17:12:59 GMT -5
Thanks for elaborating on some of the less well watched stuff in your portfolio there, Metallo. Gremlins. Of course....but had to wait until I could tape it off a TV broadcast in 1988 ,it then got some heavy duty replays in my VCR. Goonies.....was never much a fan of , as explained to CAM in another thread.Still trying to figure out why. Got the UHD for it, but still failed to get me going. Transformers The Movie. I missed that one completely! In fact I have still not seen it. But i'll raise ya: Watership Down: This probably did not get much traction stateside seeing as it's top heavy with British thespians - John Hurt,Denholm Elliot,Harry Andrews (from STM), Richard Lester's buddy Roy Kinnear amongst many others but darn, for a kiddies cartoon....they did not hold back on showing some blood and guts! There was a period in 1984/85 where I could probably recite the entire movie's dialogue. Not seen it in years now....it's probably a load of s**t - lol! Other ones I forgot to mention though , which are still excellent IMHO - are the 2010 and 2001 Space Odysseys. Saw 2001 on video first, circa 1986. Hated it. Then saw 2010 in 1987 and loved it, forcing me to rewatch 2001. Then I loved 2001! Watched both of those countless times, thereafter.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 26, 2023 15:12:35 GMT -5
Predictably enough it's the original Star Wars(or any one of the sequels) for me! Honestly I have lost count.
But sounds like we are all roughly in the same territory!
Yup
Terminator 1 a heck of a lot. T2 a lot but less so. Indy- basically Raiders and Temple. Star Trek 1 - 4 in particular....less so for 6 and barely at all for 5! Back To The Future 1 loads of times....less for the sequels.
James Bond 1962 1989- apart from the Lazenby one , Man With Golden Gun and Living Daylights.....all the others too many times to remember! Never really cared too much for anything post Dalton, but have seen them all.
I had a thing in particular for Octozippy mongoose for a while.....probably because being trapped on an island full of beautiful women fulfilled some kind of personal teenaged fantasy!
But Star Wars is the champ!
Edit: Moderator's algo messed up Octopu^^y rather amusingly. lol
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 26, 2023 11:25:09 GMT -5
I’ve also been wondering about what we would have gotten if Adams had played Lois in Superman Returns and Bosworth had played Lois in Man of Steel. They were both miscast no matter what but maybe it would have turned out a little better if their situations had been swapped. Adams was older than Bosworth in 2004. Older than Routh as well. At least she wouldn’t have come off like a teenager the way Bosworth did. Bosworth as Lois was suggested by Kevin Spacey but she didn’t work for what they were going for. She is the same age as Cavill and may have worked better playing Lois in an full on reboot seven years later. She’d have still been young enough for that. The same problems still exist though: Zack Snyder and David Goyer and their awful directing and writing. To be fair Kidder was a touch older than Reeve. But of all the actors to play Supes in the movies at least, Reeve was the one who gave the impression of being older than he really was. That probably helped Kidder and the chemistry between the two actors in general.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 26, 2023 10:53:00 GMT -5
Metallo ,CAM and Kamdan I think that Begin's and Dark Knight utilized the back story between Rachel and Bruce strictly as a plot device , as opposed to their love for each other being a central part of the narrative. So , for instance, the big emotional crescendo at the end of Begins is really about Batman defeating his mentor,Liam Neeson, than about saving Rachel, which he had already done earlier on in the film, anyways. The climax of STM is all about saving(or bringing back to life!) Lois. The spectacular earthquake stuff serves almost as a kind of pre-climax.....so clever story telling from Mank and Donner there. Hence the absolute neccessity to solidify their blossoming relationship on the balcony and the romantic flight over NYC/Metrop, earlier on in the movie. In The Dark Knight, you could argue Rachel's death spurs Batman onto enacting that all intrusive surveillance device that allows Freeman to track the Joker. And obviously her death is also the thing that pushes Harvey over the edge. It just meant that whoever played Rachel was going to have a slightly constrained latitude to their portrayal because it became more about the ramifications of the character's predicament(i.e her being in danger or her death) than the actual romance between said chraracter and the main protagonist(s). In MoS, BvS and JL.....beating Zod,Doomsday and Steppenwolf are truly the respective climaxes of all those films....so poor Adams never had a prayer of demonstrating what she could do. Wheras in SII(Lester and/or Donner ) it's the actual direct love relationship which is juxtaposed against the villain's destruction of earth...er....east Huston(lol!) ect ect. You could even argue that the scene in the office that terminates Supes's romance with Lois, at the end of the theatrical SII, is the emotional climax of the film. Had donner finished in 79'...it would have been the same, although how it would have been done is the great mystery. Of the modern stuff ,maybe Supes Returns came closest in having a similar romantic narrative structure to the older movies(Lois being besides Supe's bed in the hospital) , again, serving as an emotion cilmax to the flick. But because Bosworth could not strike up a rapport with Routh(at least in his Supes guise IMHO), that emotional climax did not quite work, again , IMHO. It just meant that Kidder had way more of a platform to exhibit her romantic/dramatic acting chops than either Adams,Holmes or Gallyenhall.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 26, 2023 10:06:58 GMT -5
@cam
I too actually liked Bosworth's interaction with Routh when he played Clark. But when he changed to Supes, their chemistry did not work for me.
As opposed to MoS where it made no difference whether Cavill was playing Clark or Supes, the chemistry with Adams was simply non existant.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 26, 2023 9:48:46 GMT -5
@kamdan and Metallo Interesting that you folks brought up Adams being turned down for Begins. Because on the 2 occasions were Adams did play opposite Bale that I am aware of, (The Fighter and American Hustle),she actually did have half decent chemistry with the fellow. One has to bare in mind that romance is not neccesarily Nolan's forte'(at least IMHO).......so that probably did not help Holmes in her onscreen interactions with Bale. But not casting Adams , given her subsequent rapport with Bale in other films , for me is one of the great "what ifs" of Nolan's Batman. Metallo Cavill's and Adam's chemistry was the equivalent of a dead frozen trout! LOL!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 25, 2023 11:18:14 GMT -5
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 25, 2023 11:02:21 GMT -5
I don’t feel rattled - just glad it wasn’t a Lester film! (Kidding! Kidding!) Ah interesting. It's been a while since I have seen it. IMHO, the major weakness of something like Infinity is just having to be familiar with a lot of the other stuff that came before, so that the predicament of the characters resonates more. STM is(or certainly could be) a stand alone movie. That does not apply to the bulk of the multiple phases of films within the MCU ,because outside of the 1st gen stuff(Iron Man 1,Cap America 1,Thor 1,Guardians 1) ..... alot of the others , if not all(like Winter Soldier which I personally rate as the best of the crop) are very dependent on set ups from the preceding bunch. Would love to get the reaction of somebody who never saw Cap 1.....who when seeing the end of the 1st fight between the Winter Soldier and Cap on the street.....sees the maskless Bucky......wonder how that would play?
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 25, 2023 7:32:33 GMT -5
1)Winter Soldier 2)Spiderman 2 3)Infinity War
Notice I left out The Dark Knight.......i'm gonna rattle that cage!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 25, 2023 7:00:38 GMT -5
Thought you folks might enjoy this:
It'a little indie film(even a touch arty) with a pre Willy Wonka Gene Wilder and Kidder from ways back in 1970.
Lovely performance from Margot. Also, she looks drop dead f**cking gorgeous!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 25, 2023 6:53:01 GMT -5
Have you guys seen Morning Glory from 1993?
It has Reeve and Rafin.
Putting aside the characters they are portraying in this flick, which are pretty different from the Lois/Supes paradigm......they do have quite good chemistry here , IMHO.
I have not watched the whole thing....it's a bit too drab and predictable for my liking, but the interaction between the 2 actors is better than what we got in the screen tests nearly 16 years prior for STM. Of course both actors had acquired extra experience by this point(1993)....but still, Rafin had some decent acting chops(also a very beautiful woman I may add!).
I guess we were so early on in the comic book adaptation to film evolution at that point(1977)....that a lot of actresses in this case(Rafin and Warren) applied the comic , over the top interpretations quite literally to their portrayals.
Kidder's trick was just to treat Supes like a guy she was fond of.....almost(but not quite!) forgetting the powers that he had. It was a fine line to tread, but I think that approach worked!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 25, 2023 6:45:42 GMT -5
Agree with all the points made above.
I would add that Margot was highly politicized in her views and campaigned to get her meassages across.
Whichever way she leaned(left or right - mostly on the left) was irrelevant.
But her natural inclinations to be inquisitive in real life with regards to what she perceived as societal injustices , instilled her portrayal of Lois with that same sense of "eagerness to discover what's goin' on".....which is an integral part of the character.
I don't think either Adams,Bosworth(jeez!),Hatcher or Tulloch have as much of that in their make up as personalities in real life, at least from what I have seen, hence their relatively banal(IMHO) portrayals. I see that Adams has done stuff for underpriveledged youths ect ect.....so that's cool.
But Kidder went one step further and was not afraid to "rattle the cage" in Batman parlance, so to speak!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 24, 2023 21:11:50 GMT -5
Beans! Even though I break out in a rash if I eat them. Other: "Gimme another plate of that garbage will ya" !
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 24, 2023 16:50:16 GMT -5
Hi CAM
I was going to say that if you wanted to feel better about SII....get a 4K TV(or a projector - like me- hey - we are a dying breed!)....and watch that UHD!
It looks fantastic, by far the best it has ever looked on home video and better than it probably looked in theaters back in 81'. As I said before, SII now looks better than STM on this 4K platform. To be fair , STM's 4K from 2018, whilst still servicable and respectable, is in desperate need of a makeover.
But back in 2001 when STM was released in that Special Edition DVD with all the bells and whistles, SII was left to languish with the substandard master that was ported over from the 1996 widescreen laserdisc.
Considering Donner's influence within the power structures of WB....he could still have made an effort to have the SII,III and even IV DVDs have better scans and masters ways back then in 2001.
Instead,II,III and IV(well that would look s**t no matter what you did with it!) ended up looking second rate compared to STM by some considerable distance. And a lot of the post 2000/2001 dissing of SII and III from a picture quality perspective,emanates from those first gen DVDs.
However, back in the VHS and Laserdisc days(specifically the early 80s) , there was no distinction as to which films looked better or worse in relation to each other. I should know......I was there at the time and I still have them all now! For what it's worth , at the VHS level ,I would argue the best looking one is SIII(released under the EMI label in 1984). STM and SII looked a bit washed out by comparison......but no one cared back then....we were just happy to be able to see them in our living rooms!
Anyways with regards to how would STM would have turned out if Lester had been in control and would I have been happy with it?
To answer that question, I would have to dislike STM in order to evaluate if Lester could do a better job.
But I love STM just the way it is!
I don't imagine any director(let alone Lester)at being able to have been more proficient than Donner in pulling off STM.
SII is a bit different because now there was more emphasis on the love story......with it going deeper than before.
And with the other non Supes Donner flicks I have seen, I am not sure that would have been a guaranteed home run.
Lester's depiction of romance in his films has always been restrained but resonant and subliminal at the same time, again, IMHO.
Donner's interpretations(at least in LadyHawke, Lethal Weapon's 2&3 and Conspiracy Theory) are more ebuliant and maybe have more effervescence , which works within the context of first date type scenarios....in fact all 4 of those films have the lovers interacting with each other for the first time within a romantic context.
You got that in LW 2 & 3(for instance, I liked the riffs off Jaws in how Russo and Gibson show each other their scars). Great stuff, but not neccessarily a lot of depth.
Lester on the other hand, went to greater romantic levels in Petulia,The Knack and Robin & Marian. Even Cuba and rather suprisingly, Butch And Sundance have touching romantic moments.
Also,I concede I was refering to conventional romance as opposed to bromances in my previous post.
But yeah, no question ,the rapport between Glover and Gibson is obviously now a pop culture icon.
But for what it's worth Butch and Sundance has a bromance of sorts between Berenger and Katt which is also excellent. Actually, I watched the Blu Ray again the other night and enjoyed it quite a bit more than on my first viewing several week prior. It's a nice little Western film and as I said,there is great chemistry between the 2 leads. I checked the Ebert and Siskel Butch and Sundance review from 1979 .....and they highlighted the acting as being one of the film's best elements.
In fact, I would say that in every Lester film I have seen, there are great actor performances across the board, irrespective of whether the film itself is any good. SIII comes to mind!
With regards to your Donner must see list......I am hoping to see the remaining ones when I get my hands on them next month. Inside Moves being the jewel in the crown.
|
|