Weird use of color

[SSS DDD]

Peyton Place : every house and store has the same blue/grey interior

[moviePig]

On Feb 10, 11:01 am, forn...@webtv.net (SSS DDD) wrote:
> Peyton Place : every house and store has the same blue/grey interior

In its entirety, the PSYCHO remake.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[gtr]

On 2013-02-10 17:57:52 +0000, moviePig said:

> On Feb 10, 11:01 am, forn...@webtv.net (SSS DDD) wrote:
>> Peyton Place : every house and store has the same blue/grey interior
>
> In its entirety, the PSYCHO remake.

If vivid can be considered weird, I'd add Kwaidan.

[Mack A. Damia]

Schindler's List (1993).

Filmed in black and white, but there is a girl in a red coat caught up
in the Nazi persecution; she later appears dead The reason for it has
been the subject of much debate.

--

[Kerrison]

One of the Most Awful Films of all time is called 'Thunderpants' (it's
about a boy who can't stop farting) in which Practically Everything is
Green ... Walls, Clothes, Telephones, Floors, Bedspreads, Uniforms,
Automobiles, Plates, Doors, etc. etc. ... all in a sickly Green. How
on earth this movie ever got made is one of those mysteries of life,
as is all that greenery ... Here's a taster to give you an idea ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byCyHwvNULY

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:59:35 PM UTC-5, Kerrison wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:14 pm, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
> > On 2013-02-10 17:57:52 +0000, moviePig said:
>
> >
>
> > > On Feb 10, 11:01 am, forn...@webtv.net (SSS DDD) wrote:
>
> > >> Peyton Place : every house and store has the same blue/grey interior
>
> >
>
> > > In its entirety, the PSYCHO remake.
>
> >
>
> > If vivid can be considered weird, I'd add Kwaidan.
>
>
>
> One of the Most Awful Films of all time is called 'Thunderpants' (it's
>
> about a boy who can't stop farting) in which Practically Everything is
>
> Green ... Walls, Clothes, Telephones, Floors, Bedspreads, Uniforms,
>
> Automobiles, Plates, Doors, etc. etc. ... all in a sickly Green. How
>
> on earth this movie ever got made is one of those mysteries of life,
>
> as is all that greenery

Maybe that's where the term "Greenlighting" came from.

[dm16...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:01:18 AM UTC-5, SSS DDD wrote:
> Peyton Place : every house and store has the same blue/grey interior

Don't know whether they should be classed as weird but the following movies used color in an unusual fashion.

_Track of the Cat_ was basically a black and white movie with splashes of color.

Hitchcock's _Spellbound_ was a black and white film with just two frames of color.

_Saraband for Dead Lovers_ was deliberately shot in very muted colors to emphasise the tragic nature of the story. Many critics didn't like it.

Dave M

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:52:04 PM UTC-5, dm16...@gmail.com wrote:

> _Saraband for Dead Lovers_ was deliberately shot in very muted colors to emphasise the tragic nature of the story. Many critics didn't like it.
>

Anybody remember the gold tint over "Reflections in a Golden Eye"?

[Mack A. Damia]

Colors were bleached away and replaced by a sepia wash.

--

[calvin]

'Rumble Fish' (1983). If I recall correctly, only some fish
in a bowl were in color.

'What Dreams May Come' (1998). The colors that a man
finds in Heaven are rich and thick like the paint on the canvases
of his soul-mate artist wife, who went to the other place by choice.

[calvin]

The Coen brothers seems to have embraced muted color.
They used it to some extent in Fargo, in the colors that they
painted some structures; then they used a muted color process
for all of 'O Brother Where Art Thou' and 'True Grit'.

[dm16...@gmail.com]

There have been a few movies shot in "Sepia Tone". I remember them going back to the forties. Quite attractive actually, gave them the look of an old photographs. Worked very well with Westerns.

Dave M

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, dm16...@gmail.com wrote:

> There have been a few movies shot in "Sepia Tone". I remember them going back to the forties. Quite attractive actually, gave them the look of an old photographs. Worked very well with Westerns.
>

There were numerous silent films that were tinted as a matter of course or style. It was all the rage for a while, proving once again that there's nothing new under the Klieg.

[moviePig]

On Feb 10, 10:40 pm, SLGreg <SLG...@madeitup.com> wrote:

> <raises hand>  I do, I do!
>
> Also, Josh Logan's nasty color filters in "South Pacific."

At the time, I was assured by moviegoing friends that such comprised
the miracle of Todd-AO...

[calvin]

On Feb 10, 11:15 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 10:40 pm, SLGreg <SLG...@madeitup.com> wrote:
> > Also, Josh Logan's nasty color filters in "South Pacific."
>
> At the time, I was assured by moviegoing friends that such comprised
> the miracle of Todd-AO...

I don't remember the details now, but apparently there
was some sort of misunderstanding between director
Logan and cinematographer Leon Shamroy that led
to more being done in that regard than either one of
them wanted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NROmUb7o0

[dm16...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:40:04 PM UTC-5, SLGreg wrote:

> <raises hand> I do, I do!
>
>
>

> Also, Josh Logan's nasty color filters in "South Pacific."
>

> --
>
> greg


Yep. They were pretty bad I must admit.

Dave M

[Kerrison]

On Feb 11, 5:43 am, dm1657...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:40:04 PM UTC-5, SLGreg wrote:

> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:02:05 -0800 (PST), wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:52:04 PM UTC-5, dm16...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> _Saraband for Dead Lovers_ was deliberately shot in very muted colors to emphasise the tragic nature of the story.  Many critics didn't like it.
>
> > >Anybody remember the gold tint over "Reflections in a Golden Eye"?
>
> > <raises hand>  I do, I do!
>
> > Also, Josh Logan's nasty color filters in "South Pacific."
>
> > --
>
> > greg
>
> Yep.  They were pretty bad I must admit.
>
> Dave M

I think I read somewhere that for his 1956 'Moby Dick', John Huston
superimposed the film's colour negative over the black-and-white one
so as to get the effect of old lithographic prints ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAz7hWjjBVg

[dm16...@gmail.com]

From imdb:

" To create the desaturated pastel effect image of the movie, director of photography Oswald Morris used a unique dye transfer technique that uses broad-cut black and white matrices. This causes the separation, and contains the other two colors before recombining to create the desired effect. A silver layer was later added in the 4th pass."

Dave M

[Halmyre]

Scorsese's "The Aviator" uses different colour processes to represent
different periods of Hughes' life. I remember wondering why the peas
on his dinner plate were blue.

--
Halmyre

[Bill Steele]

In article <4kufh858iqfl1p5sc...@4ax.com>,

Not quite on topic, but we should mention Pleasantville, Stairway to
Heaven and The Wizard of Oz. And last week's Once Upon a Time.

[Richard Brooks]

SSS DDD said the following on 10/02/2013 16:01:

> Peyton Place : every house and store has the same blue/grey interior
>

With increasing use in film and television, green is the new grey.

[Bill Anderson]

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is dirty brown. Is so.

Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[calvin]

On Feb 13, 10:50 am, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is dirty brown. Is so.

Did you find the same in 'To Rome with Love'?

[Bill Anderson]

Haven't seen it; didn't sound very interesting. I'm sure I'll catch it
someday on cable. Sure hope it doesn't turn out to be dirty brown too.

--

[moviePig]

On Feb 13, 3:41 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 1:37 PM, calvin wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:50 am, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is dirty brown. Is so.
>
> > Did you find the same in 'To Rome with Love'?
>
> Haven't seen it; didn't sound very interesting.  I'm sure I'll catch it
> someday on cable.  Sure hope it doesn't turn out to be dirty brown too.

In Rome it's called 'dusky russet'...

[calvin]

On Feb 13, 3:41 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2/13/2013 1:37 PM, calvin wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:50 am, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is dirty brown. Is so.
>
> > Did you find the same in 'To Rome with Love'?
>
> Haven't seen it; didn't sound very interesting.  I'm sure I'll catch it
> someday on cable.  Sure hope it doesn't turn out to be dirty brown too.

Then you didn't read or didn't believe my reports on it,
or that of 'really real'. You're not the only one. There
have been zero responses to what I wrote.

But I'm curious, what source did you trust so much that
you would skip the movie that followed 'Midnight In Paris'?
That is so foreign to me, the notion of not doing what
would be so natural, because somone else was not
impressed. It's on DVD and Blu-Ray, for god's sake.

[Bill Anderson]

I read that it comprised three or four unconnected (or semi-connected?)
love stories that took place in Rome. OK, that's nice, but beyond that,
what's the attraction? There are lots of movie love stories out there.
I read nothing that led me to think this would be something special.
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS promised to take me to the Jazz Age in Paris, and THAT
is special, for me, anyway. The Rome movie sounded ordinary and I
wasn't interested. I'm still not interested. Sorry.

And if choosing not to see movies that sound uninteresting to me isn't
"so natural," what is?

[calvin]

At least the facts should be corrected. Only two of the
four stories could be called love stories, but not even
them, really. In one, the meeting of an American girl
and a Roman guy was just a means of getting their
families together and the Woody Allen character
connected with the home operatic singer, which
was the main part of that story. It was
as farcical, or absurd, as an SNL skit.

The Roberto Benigni story was not a love story in any
sense of the word. It was a purely satirical comment
on instant fame and the paparazzi.

In a third story, two newlyweds are separated for a
day. Neither of their adventures is a love story,
though both stories are related to sex. That's the
one I called a sitcom.

In the fourth, which I called psychological, a young man
is tempted away from his girlfriend, toward her wacko friend.
Alec Baldwin plays a sort of Jiminy Cricket for the young
man.

These are four *comedies*. i would never have characterized
them as love stories. You have been misled.

[Bill Anderson]

Calvin, I have nothing against love stories or comedies per se. I don't
even *object* to movies whose descriptions don't interest me. I just
don't go to see them if I can help it. The Rome movie falls into the
category of movies that don't sound interesting to me, not even after
your summaries. Sorry; that's just how it is. PARIS sounded great and
turned out to be my favorite movie of the year. ROME sounds bleh.
Someday I'll see it, I promise, probably, I guess. Howzat?

[calvin]

Fine, but at least (hopefully) I gave you a better idea
of what Woody Allen came up with for Rome than
simply 'four love stories'. Now I eagerly await whatever
he is doing with San Francisco; and one thing that's great
about Woody's movies is that you don't have to wait
long for them.

[really real]

> Fine, but at least (hopefully) I gave you a better idea
> of what Woody Allen came up with for Rome than
> simply 'four love stories'. Now I eagerly await whatever
> he is doing with San Francisco; and one thing that's great
> about Woody's movies is that you don't have to wait
> long for them.
>

To Rome With Love split the critics but I found it to have a lot of the
strengths of Midnight in Paris. There is something more solid lately
with Woody's films.


I would assume that anyone who loved Midnight in Paris would want to see
To Rome With Love. I would want to see it just because I am interested
in where Woody is going next. Not only do Woody's movies entertain me,
his career astounds me.

[calvin]

That entertainment is dependable. No matter what the subject
nor the kind of comic or serious treatment he gives it, it's certain
to be entertaining. Even his most stark movies, like 'Interiors',
'Another Woman', and 'September', are all entertaining. I guess
the more recent 'Match Point' should be mentioned in that regard
also.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:54:26 PM UTC-5, calvin wrote:

> That entertainment is dependable. No matter what the subject
> nor the kind of comic or serious treatment he gives it, it's certain
> to be entertaining. Even his most stark movies, like 'Interiors',
> 'Another Woman', and 'September', are all entertaining. I guess
> the more recent 'Match Point' should be mentioned in that regard
> also.

"Interiors" is the only comedy by Woody Allen that holds up. It holds up even better than "Annie Hall."

[moviePig]

On Feb 14, 12:34 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:

His career astounds me, too. Hell, his career astounds
archaeologists. But it's a picket-fence of watchability ...and TO
ROME WITH LOVE sounds enough a gap to await a viewing opportunity of
elevated convenience.

[calvin]

What sound was that? What was your source?

[moviePig]

The sound of crickets... I mean, critics...

(Like Bill Anderson, I'm circumspect of your own enthusiasm... as one
could reasonably be of mine re, say, Soderbergh...)

[calvin]

On Feb 14, 1:21 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> His career astounds me, too.  Hell, his career astounds
> archaeologists.  But it's a picket-fence of watchability ...and TO
> ROME WITH LOVE sounds enough a gap to await a viewing opportunity of
> elevated convenience.

I meant to mention that I drove 100 miles and back
to see it last summer, and thought it was a Sunday
afternoon well spent. Therefore your wait for
'elevated convenience', for which apparently even
availability on Netflix DVD doesn't qualify, is
something to which I can't relate.

[calvin]

On Feb 14, 1:43 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 1:38 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 1:21 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > His career astounds me, too.  Hell, his career astounds
> > > archaeologists.  But it's a picket-fence of watchability ...and TO
> > > ROME WITH LOVE sounds enough a gap to await a viewing opportunity of
> > > elevated convenience.
>
> > What sound was that?  What was your source?
>
> The sound of crickets... I mean, critics...

Probably critical thugs like William.

> (Like Bill Anderson, I'm circumspect of your own enthusiasm... as one
> could reasonably be of mine re, say, Soderbergh...)

My initial point was just that one usually wants to see a
movie that follows a movie of which one greatly approves.
That has always been true in my case, though of course
sometimes the following movie is a big disappointment.
But I would never look to a critic for that perception to be
made for me. 'To Rome with Love' is no 'Midnight In Paris'
but I never expected it to be.

My descriptions were meant to clear up misunderstandings,
not to say that one should like what I like. It is a bit
disappointing, however, that my calling the movie
four distinct kinds of comedy did not intrigue anyone
in the least. Maybe William is right, that I have no taste
and everyone knows it.

[gtr]

On 2013-02-14 18:21:41 +0000, moviePig said:

> On Feb 14, 12:34�pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> Fine, but at least (hopefully) I gave you a better idea
>>> of what Woody Allen came up with for Rome than
>>> simply 'four love stories'. �Now I eagerly await whatever
>>> he is doing with San Francisco; and one thing that's great
>>> about Woody's movies is that you don't have to wait
>>> long for them.
>>
>> To Rome With Love split the critics but I found it to have a lot of the
>> strengths of Midnight in Paris. There is something more solid lately
>> with Woody's films.

I found it predictable in almost every respect. I additionally found
Woody himself specifically unfunny in the segement in which he appears.
He did a movie previously with Larry David supplying the "Woody Allen"
role, and I think he should continue on with this approach; supplanting
his rigid (and entertaining) "type" with another.

>> I would assume that anyone who loved Midnight in Paris would want to see
>> To Rome With Love. I would want to see it just because I am interested
>> in where Woody is going next. Not only do Woody's movies entertain me,
>> his career astounds me.

I agree completely. I thought the movie played like a bunch of scripts
that failed,so he sort of cleaned them up as vignettes and then strung
them somewhat haphazardly together. The opera singer-in-shower had all
the obvious two-dimensional qualites of the Giant New York Jewish
Mother Over Manhattan or the Giant Tit things he did. Just so over the
top you couldn't get any further over. It had it's funny but it wore
thing. Fortunately it only takes up so much time.

It had karaoke value to it: It may be funny because it's lame, or good,
or bad, but it any case it will be over in 3.5 minutes. That's logic is
always a bonus in mosaic pieces.

> His career astounds me, too. Hell, his career astounds archaeologists.
> But it's a picket-fence of watchability ...and TO ROME WITH LOVE
> sounds enough a gap to await a viewing opportunity of elevated
> convenience.

I can't quite parse that: You'll see it later? In any case, for
whomever believes that Woody at his worse still beats the hell out of
remote-control roulette on a good day: See it. Hell I recommend
everything he's done as "valuable enough to kill 1.5 hours with".

[gtr]

On 2013-02-14 18:43:42 +0000, moviePig said:

> (Like Bill Anderson, I'm circumspect of your own enthusiasm... as one
> could reasonably be of mine re, say, Soderbergh...)

I recently got an enthusiastic recommendation from a reliable confrere
for Soderbergh's "final" movie, "Side Effects", along with one for
Haneke's Amour. We saw Amour the last day and it really was an
excellent movie. Haven't seen Side Effects yet, but wasn't a
subscriber to Soderbergh.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:01:30 PM UTC-5, calvin wrote:
>
> Probably critical thugs like William.
>

Oh, William, please beat me. Please let me luxuriate in your harsh light. Point of fact: While few critics totally panned it, the majority of critics -- mostly nebbish hacks -- gave it a tepid reception. No one was really excited about seeing the film. mPig's response -- and without suggesting there's anything wrong with it -- tends toward the midstream and here he is right on the money on this one. I haven't seen the film but since *everyone* said it was less than "Midnight In Paris," I saw no reason to see it since I thought "Midnight" was a pandering piece of pastiche that was as empty as its faux posturing toward culture and false memories. Here you go again, calvin the masochist, taking a stand against the "thugs" and the naysayers who call a tepid response a tepid response. You're such a fool, calvin, and my god you are tedium incarnate.

[gtr]

You call that thugish!?! Come on, man, put some muscle in it or your
rep will be mulch!

[calvin]

Someone please quote the charters for ramp-f
and ramc-f where they say that we are here to
echo the critics.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, calvin wrote:

> Someone please quote the charters for ramp-f
> and ramc-f where they say that we are here to
> echo the critics.

There you go again. You brought up "thug" critics you whining ninny. Fuck you, calvin. I'd rather get on the rug and snort dust bunnies than waste any more time on a psychopathic, masochistic, one-note twit like yourself. It's the same shit over and over and over again. Sometimes I think you're trotsky's sock puppet. Whatever you are, "whining," "repetitive," and "extremely limited" are part of the description. You're fucking boring in how you play the same trick over and over and over again. And about who? Woody Allen and Ayn Rand. Neither even show up on my radar. So take your lesser mind and your lesser vocabulary and your lesser dim-bulb cultural idols and jam them up your butt. No one will miss them or you.

[moviePig]

In a much earlier post, I noted that this winter's new-release
graveyard had three directors who made for likely good (in this
instance, interesting) viewing: the Korean guy who did Ahnold's movie,
Walter Hill doing Stallone, and Soderbergh. And, for my money, they
all came through. But, although William's right that 'my money' tends
to the mainstream, I am always able to enjoy (what I think is) 2 hours
of slick directing/editing. Now, if you are, too, then yeah, you
could consider rushing out to SIDE EFFECTS. (What are the chances I
and your confrere could *both* be wrong? Besides, you'll have your
pick of seating...)

[moviePig]

'Elevated convenience' probably means something like, 'it falls under
my browsing hand at the library'. Yeah, I don't doubt it'll be time
adequately spent ...but my (properly working) schedule easily
comprises an unbroken string of such. And, looking back, there's a
bunch of Woody that, completism aside, I wouldn't have much minded
missing...

[really real]

That's a funny joke but not as funny as the jokes in Stardust Memories.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:35:17 PM UTC-5, really real wrote:

> That's a funny joke but not as funny as the jokes in Stardust Memories.

That's a matter of opinion.

[gtr]

On 2013-02-14 20:21:17 +0000, moviePig said:

> On Feb 14, 2:23 pm, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> On 2013-02-14 18:43:42 +0000, moviePig said:
>>
>>> (Like Bill Anderson, I'm circumspect of your own enthusiasm... as one
>>> could reasonably be of mine re, say, Soderbergh...)
>>
>> I recently got an enthusiastic recommendation from a reliable confrere
>> for Soderbergh's "final" movie, "Side Effects", along with one for

>> Haneke's Amour.  We saw Amour the [NEXT] day and it really was an

>> excellent movie.  Haven't seen Side Effects yet, but wasn't a
>> subscriber to Soderbergh.
>
> In a much earlier post, I noted that this winter's new-release
> graveyard had three directors who made for likely good (in this
> instance, interesting) viewing: the Korean guy who did Ahnold's movie,
> Walter Hill doing Stallone, and Soderbergh. And, for my money, they
> all came through. But, although William's right that 'my money' tends
> to the mainstream, I am always able to enjoy (what I think is) 2 hours
> of slick directing/editing. Now, if you are, too, then yeah, you
> could consider rushing out to SIDE EFFECTS. (What are the chances I
> and your confrere could *both* be wrong? Besides, you'll have your
> pick of seating...)

Admittedly I specifically AVOID the mainstream, undoubtedly to my
occasional misfortune, and tend instead to the obscure. It's true that
my friend does indeed love him some mainstream movies, and we
frequently disagree on any number of films. But to that point neither
of us recommend a movie to the other that we don't think would work. So
I'll undoubtedly see it sooner or later.

He's a funny guy. He and his wife (who is a location manager in HWood)
go to Grauman's Chinese Theater EVERY Friday night, with a crew of 6 to
8, to see a movie. Then to dinner to dissect. They're all in the
industry. But it works out to 48 or so movies EVERY year! Amazing.

BTW, last month it changed it's name to "TCL Chinese Theater" since
TCL, a Chinese electronics manufacturer, bought "the naming rights". I
don't know if they otherwise have anything else to do with it other
than the sign over the barn.

I think I'll stick with "Grauman's" and hope for TCL's fortunes to wane...

[moviePig]

There oughta be a law. I, for one, plan never to refer to "the Met
Life blimp"...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:21:17 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

But, although William's right that 'my money' tends
> to the mainstream, I am always able to enjoy (what I think is) 2 hours
> of slick directing/editing.

And my statement was neither intended -- nor framed -- as a slight.

[moviePig]

I know. Harkness called my tastes "suburban", which I think he didn't
mean as an (overt) slight, and I came to rather enjoy both the
connotation and the truth of it.

[gtr]

On 2013-02-14 22:58:10 +0000, moviePig said:

> On Feb 14, 5:49�pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:21:17 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>
>> � But, although William's right that 'my money' tends
>>
>>> to the mainstream, I am always able to enjoy (what I think is) 2 hours
>>> of slick directing/editing.
>>
>> And my statement was neither intended -- nor framed -- as a slight.
>
> I know. Harkness called my tastes "suburban", which I think he didn't
> mean as an (overt) slight, and I came to rather enjoy both the
> connotation and the truth of it.

How about pedestrian, provincial, unsophisticated or "mass market"?
Any of this irk you, Superman?

[moviePig]

He said 'suburban'. You have something against golden retrievers?
Besides, I eat only *gourmet* chitlins.

[gtr]

On 2013-02-15 10:19:11 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <2013021412524222254-xxx@yyyzzz>

> gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> He's a funny guy. He and his wife (who is a location manager in HWood)
>> go to Grauman's Chinese Theater EVERY Friday night, with a crew of 6 to
>> 8, to see a movie. Then to dinner to dissect. They're all in the
>> industry. But it works out to 48 or so movies EVERY year! Amazing.
>

> Before the kids, my wife an I averaged over 100 a year for 15 years.

In a theater? Both on the weekend or during the week? I like movies,
but I've never been able to find enough movies to get me in the theater
even once a week.

By the way, my buddy tells me that they have been going to the Dome
ArcLight theater for a number of (the past 25) years, and only return
to Grauman's on rare occasions. Early on there were up to 14 people
that tagged along, and that attendees came and went with great
regularity. Now there down to a core of from 6 to 10.

[WrongWayWade]

Bill Anderson wrote:
> MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is dirty brown. Is so.

Usually sci-fi or fantasy movies like 'Underworld' and 'Van Helsing' where
they do the whole thing in nearly black-and-white with pale to dark blue as
the only real colors. I'm thinking some gladiator-type movies pulled this
trick as well. I find it annoying. Just give me full color and be done
with it. (Like Flesh+Blood (1985), Verhoeven.) Just because it's 'old'
doesn't mean they didn't have all the colors back then.

On the good side, I really enjoyed the brilliantly bright colors throughout
of Moulin Rouge (2001), Luhrmann.

[WrongWayWade]

really real wrote:
>> Fine, but at least (hopefully) I gave you a better idea
>> of what Woody Allen came up with for Rome than
>> simply 'four love stories'. Now I eagerly await whatever
>> he is doing with San Francisco; and one thing that's great
>> about Woody's movies is that you don't have to wait
>> long for them.
>>
>
>
> To Rome With Love split the critics but I found it to have a lot of
> the strengths of Midnight in Paris. There is something more solid
> lately with Woody's films.
>
>

> I would assume that anyone who loved Midnight in Paris would want to
> see To Rome With Love. I would want to see it just because I am
> interested in where Woody is going next. Not only do Woody's movies
> entertain me, his career astounds me.

'Ode to Buda + Pest' ??