Picked it up last night (blind purchase). Although the picture and sound were top notch, the movie itself? EH! I wasn't impressed with the story, writing, directing or acting. Too bad, pretty good cast and a decent director. What are your thoughts?
pdjennings
05-28-03, 12:08 PM
I thought it was great fun. Stylish and well done. :)
audrey
05-28-03, 12:17 PM
I thought the ending needed to be tightened up a bit---otherwise I enjoyed it. Like pdjennings said, it was fun.
gutwrencher
05-28-03, 12:22 PM
I had this in my hands, but something told me to pass. doubt I'll be getting it later.
Flave
05-28-03, 12:47 PM
Saw it last night and I have to say this movie is a mess.
The plot has holes the size of JLo's derriere. It looks like they made the story up as they went along with absolutely no regard for story integrity. The only thing important to these guys was introducing yet another plot twist and screw it if it didn't make any sense. Us dumb consumers will never notice and we'll dutifully ooooohhh and aaaahhh with every new 'shocking' plot revelation. Lord I hate movies that insult my intelligence. I mean, how could anyone with an IQ higher than 80 NOT figure out what was coming half way in?
In case I was too subtle: I really did not like this movie.
digitalfreaknyc
05-28-03, 02:11 PM
YOu know what's funny? I knew from the trailer what was going to happen and still enjoyed it. It was the not knowing if it will actually come to fruition.
In any case, the big thing holding me back is the damn aspect ratio. I LOVE 2.35:1. I love the way it looks. And this is sure to just be a mess.
I switched to laserdisc for a reason. I'm not going backwards.
SCHMEGGA
05-28-03, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by digitalfreaknyc
...I switched to laserdisc for a reason. I'm not going backwards.
:hscratch: backwards?
DonnachaOne
05-28-03, 06:14 PM
Very bland, but Farrell showed he was more than capable opposite Pacino.
And, what a terrible trailer. In the one I saw, "nothing is what it seems" was uttered three times, twice by Al Pacino. Umm... just how dumb are we viewed to be?
sinister
05-28-03, 09:53 PM
it was great until they left the farm. they should've had the whole movie about their training at the farm because that was cool. after that the story fell apart. what was pachino thinking.
pro-bassoonist
05-28-03, 09:55 PM
"what was pachino thinking."- Bill Walton!
nemein
05-28-03, 11:05 PM
Movie was ok nothing too special I'll probably pick it up once it hits the cheap shelf ;) What I did think was interesting (and a little disappointing considering if it was what it was supposed to be it could have been interesting) though was the "Inside the CIA training..." bonus feature that turned into a 15 min recruitment ad :lol: I guess proving yet again the tag line of the movie -ptth-
Goat3001
05-28-03, 11:32 PM
It was decent. It wasn't surprising as it tried to be. Not worth a buy IMO but if the unlikly oppritunity came up where I could watch it for free I probably would.
myrdh
05-29-03, 07:13 AM
DVD Review Thread?
A Rental
D G D
05-29-03, 07:51 AM
thought it was ok. i am just getting tired or al pacino's rants in every movie that follow the same speach patterns. think of the last 15 minutes of any movie he is in and you'll get my point.
Brain Stew
05-29-03, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by D G D
thought it was ok. i am just getting tired or al pacino's rants in every movie that follow the same speach patterns. think of the last 15 minutes of any movie he is in and you'll get my point.
Godfather 3? I don't think he had a tirade at the end of that one ;).
I understand what you mean though. His big speeches were fresh even during "Scent of a Woman", but after "Any Given Sunday"? No thanks, Al.
digitalfreaknyc
05-29-03, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by SCHMEGGA
:hscratch: backwards?
Sorry...
I switched to laserdisc because I couldn't STAND watching movies that were not in their original aspect ratio. I was 12.
This is a large step backwards in my opinion.
greydt
05-29-03, 09:26 AM
the only thing I liked about "The Recruit"/only reason I'll pick up the DVD = Bridget Moynahan :drool:
Otherwise, I was relatively neutral to the whole movie - it started and then it ended.
Although I gotta agree with DGD/Brain Stew: I was thinking during the movie "Hey, Al Pacino is giving another long rant!" and that's coming from someone who's had a somewhat limited exposure to Al Pacino's filmography.
FreshOne
05-29-03, 11:43 AM
It was nothing special, but it was a fun ride. For me, Pacino rules in just about anything. I don't care how many times he acts burned out, tired, and belligerent, its too much fun to watch :)
It’s a fun movie if you don't expect to be enlightened or dazzled by brilliant writing. Saw it theatrically, don't see too much of a need to see it again. Three stars.
Geofferson
05-29-03, 12:09 PM
I thought it was only so-so. Started off promising, but went off the track in the final act.
SCHMEGGA
05-29-03, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by digitalfreaknyc
Sorry...
I switched to laserdisc because I couldn't STAND watching movies that were not in their original aspect ratio. I was 12.
This is a large step backwards in my opinion.
That makes more sense. I gotcha now. :up:
tacomantt
05-29-03, 05:48 PM
Why isnt this in the movies forum?
waskydiver
05-29-03, 08:49 PM
OK... I'm torqued about this DVD, and I haven't even watched it yet.
Opened it up, and instead of an insert, there was a freaking watch ad.
I can stand having DVD related ad's IN ADDITION to an insert, but it bugs me to have a completely unrelated ad.
Am considering returning it. Yes, I know I'm over reacting.
BigPete
05-29-03, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by digitalfreaknyc
Sorry...
I switched to laserdisc because I couldn't STAND watching movies that were not in their original aspect ratio. I was 12.
This is a large step backwards in my opinion.
IIRC, I believe this is a case where the director really, really wanted 1.78:1 and filmed for such but the studio forced him to release theatrically in 2.35:1 to give it that action/blockbuster appeal.
It's a Kubrick scenario.
RocShemp
05-29-03, 10:47 PM
I'm watching this DVD right now and am wondering about this. The back of the case claims the film is presented in the "Director's Original 1.77:1 Apect Ratio" and that it "Shows More Of The Film Than What Presented In Theatres" which leads me to believe this film was matted to 2.40:1 in it's theatrical release. But as I'm watching this, the shots must've looked like crap this way. I asked my mom (she saw it in theatres) and she told me that the framing was too "narrow" when she saw it in theatres and it really made it an eyesore. (She prefers this aspect ratio in this particular case BTW.) If this was directors prefered ratio, why wasn't it matted to 1.85:1 in theatres? I've not been willing to listen to the whole audio commentary (just the first fiveminutes as I am still watching the movie) but was disappointed the director didn't tackle this issue right off the bat.
(For those who are wondering, since it's late I turned off the home theatre and put the DVD in my comp. I just got curious while I was doing the switch and wanted to see if anyone knew the reason behind the differing aspect ratios.)
digitalfreaknyc
05-29-03, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by BigPete
IIRC, I believe this is a case where the director really, really wanted 1.78:1 and filmed for such but the studio forced him to release theatrically in 2.35:1 to give it that action/blockbuster appeal.
It's a Kubrick scenario.
Sorry to say that I refuse to believe this until I hear it from the directors own mouth. Any box that says "more than you've seen in theaters" where the aspect ratio has been tampered with has me a little nervous. I dont' remember having a problem with the framing at all in theaters.
BigPete
05-29-03, 11:10 PM
I can't find the actual interview, but here are excerpts from http://www.dvdlair.com/recruitrw.htm. It's not exactly how I stated it before, but very interesting nonetheless.
In an interview Donaldson explained that, since home-video viewing can never be as big and overwhelming as the theatrical experience, he decided to adjust the Super 35 image to fill 16:9 screens.
"I personally supervised the transfer," Donaldson said. "It's not just a straight transfer of the film. I did some moves and things in the DVD that don't exist in the theatrical film."
The result is an image that can still be partially letterboxed on conventional 4:3 sets, and in both cases, the composition of the visuals is altered by the expanded frame.
"I did it shot by shot," Donaldson said, "and this is what I wanted it to be. If I didn't like the composition of something, I would change it -- you can reposition (the frame), you can make a move, you can make it smaller or bigger. I did, many times, change slightly the framing of how it was originally shown, even. In Super 35, the (theatrical image) is centered, so there is space above and below it" that can be used in an unmatted transfer.
"With the new-format television sets getting bigger and bigger, that (1.77:1) format is going to be a very important one", Donaldson said, "and I think you'll find more and more people doing what I've done when they realize they can have the best of both worlds. If they take some care when they're shooting the picture and think of both (theatrical and home-video) releases, you'll see more people doing this."
RocShemp
05-30-03, 12:02 AM
So basically this is Pan & Scan for the widescreen crowd? Now I truly understand digitalfreaknyc's concern. This is indeed a step backward as far as OAR is concerned. :(
digitalfreaknyc
05-30-03, 10:38 AM
I'm sorry but after reading that, the man is one giant ass.
I'm officially not buying this movie.
If this is the way the home video market is going, i'm going to start buying bootlegs to be able to see the movie the way it was shown in theaters.
Doug Schiller
05-30-03, 01:30 PM
I have no problem with Super 35 being reformatted to 1.85. If it was up to me I would banish the stupid format.
Most Super 35 films look overmatted to me anyway (T2, Harry Potter, Kingpin).
This was done with the first Austin Powers and I thought it looked great.
Remember, you are not missing anything. If the director doesn't mind reformatting the film, why the outcry?
Now if this was a true anamorphic, panavision print that he pan & scanned down to 1.85, then I would probably bitch the loudest.
To get back on subject, the movie sucked anyway. One of my biggest movie pet peeves is the supposed "ultra" spy that is easily manipulated by a pair of silk panties (i.e. Mission Impossible II).
Buy: