TimeSkip

Amazing film, I'm glad I had the chance to see it in the theater, never thought it would go as wide as it has but I made the most of it. Only wish there could have been more screen time for baseball guy and hammer girl.

hanshotfirst1138

I'm still staggered this went wide. There about 8 people in cinema when I saw it, and one walked out. I'll give this to my local AMC, they do what a multiplex is supposed to do, they've been having a classics series recently of which I've been the sole attendant as far as I can tell, but they seem to keep doing it. Doubt it'll last, but I'm amazing it's happening at all. Wonder how any of the older films are genuine DCPs?

Matthew Chmiel

If it's similar to Cinemark's Classic Series, they're all genuine DCPs.

Titanic will be apart of that series next month meaning it should be the 4K DLP that went out two years ago. It's a shame they're not doing it in 3D.

bluetoast

Funnily enough I saw this on film, though the projectionist was a little slow on some of the reel changes.

hanshotfirst1138

My AMC is doing Titanic as well. As it wasn't shot in 3-D, that's fine with me. They're doing The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur too. I'm thinking of going, but that's a seriously ass-numbigly long time for my ADHD-ridden body to sit. I went to another theater's Lawrence of Arabia though, that was too good an opportunity to pass up. I'm assuming it was a DCP, since the end credits ran for the 2012 restoration. I'd still kill to see it in 70mm. On the other hand, when I saw On the Waterfront, in spite of the Sony 4K logo at the beginning, the projection was one of the most hideous I've ever seen. I'm not exaggerating, it looked like a bad VHS tape. Either they weren't projecting a real DCP, or whomever stuck the DCP did a truly hideous job. I should've complained, but I didn't because I'm spineless . When I inquired about it beforehand asking if it was a DCP, guest services were totally clueless. The guy was like "What? Um, it's digital, if that's what you mean." An art house in a nearby college town did a Hitchcock series, and the pamphlet actually indicated which were DCPs and which were just DVDs or Blus. One was actually 35mm. Perhaps I should try getting of of the house more often .

I'm surprised any 35mm prints of this were even struck. The version I saw was obviously digital. It was long though, I was crossing my legs not to run to the bathroom by the last act.

Matthew Chmiel

Titanic in IMAX 3D was amazing. I am glad Cameron retained the 1.78:1 aspect ratio for the Blu-ray 3D as it's also one of the better live-action 3D discs out there on the market.

hanshotfirst1138

2.35 to 1.78 seems like a ton of cropping, You'd literally lose half the picture. Hopefully the 2-D version will be 2.35.

RichC2

Was Titanic cropped or just reframed?

hanshotfirst1138

Cameron was still shooting 35mm at that point, did he shoot it open matte? That might be one of the few times where other people actually show up to see it. Did Cameron play with the colors on that too?

Anyway, apparently going wide with this did not go well for Sony. Still, kudos to them for taking a subtitled movie wide. I never thought I'd see it in the suburbs, that's for damn sure. I stayed all the way through the credits, for Hong Kong action devotees, the car stunts were done by none other than Bruce Law Lai-Yin, who worked on stuff like Bullet in the Head, Hard Boiled, A Moment of Romance, and various others.

RichC2

No idea. As far as I know the only thing Cameron changed was that he corrected the starfields after Neil deGrasse Tyson called him out on it.

Stupid reddit AMA.

DaveyJoe

The Raid 2 was really good though.

Dan

Never heard of it.

E Unit

It's all the rage.

devilshalo

bluetoast

It was shot with an open matte (Super 35), framed 2.35 for theatrical, 1.78 for 3D.

Paff

I actually find it interesting that you saw this in a theater with a dual-projector system that requires the projectionist to manually change the reels. Must be pretty old, huh?

bluetoast

It is one of the last in the area to show 35 mm stuff, so you'd end up seeing stuff shot digitally in 35 mm which is kind of interesting. I used to work at that theater and have been in the booth a lot, but now that you mention it, I don't recall there being dual-projectors, rather there were the platters with the whole film on them.

But the print certainly had some blips and silence a few times during the movie, so something was off. Maybe they weren't properly spliced together or something.

TimeSkip

Give me the ball.

Julie Walker

I saw it this afternoon and it may take another viewing to fully take it all in and know how I feel about the final product. But overall, I was impressed with the camera work and editing in the film. I loved the various set pieces and long takes with the camera roaming everywhere. It was just something else.

In regards to the violence. It was bloody and violent, but nowhere as 'bad' as some of the critics like the one who gave it a bad review on Rotten Tomatoes made it seem. Some bits were cringe inducing, mostly broken limb moments. But overall, it was less brutally unrelenting than the original film, which felt nearly pornographic in it's excessive violence. The stylish nature of the camera work(and editing/slow motion bits) in the film I think took away some of the violent rawness the original had, and it has a more 'fun' tone to it where it's 'cool' instead of 'ouch!' and unpleasant like the original films violence was. I'm a bit relieved by that, since the original film became quite grueling to sit through since it was unrelentingly brutal. But the original film was still impressive for what it was.

I'm glad I saw it in theaters, since it turns out, it was the last day at AMC. And I loved the camera work in the film and felt it was a visually cool movie(along with the audio mix = amazing), much more than the original. I loved Hammer Girl as well, and thought she kicked ass in her first fight sequence.

Oh, and I found this bit of info from Gareth Evans on how to make do it yourself squibs for a low budget movie. Pretty cool information!

http://www.refocusedmedia.com/how-to-make-diy-squibs/

stingermck

Saw this yesterday since i finally came to town. The running time was rough because I saw it after a full day work, then the gym, so I was pretty tired.

But the action set pieces were amazing.

I just need to watch it again to really appreciate the slow parts.

Julie Walker

Strange, while I wasn't so pumped up while viewing the film despite being impressed by it. The next day at work, I felt charged up the entire day and wanting to learn martial arts and just let loose, but had to keep myself in check,lol.

And now the film is not in theaters anymore, so I won't be able to see it again until it's blu-ray release. I had a similar reaction when I saw a midnight screening of Master of the Flying Guillotine a few years a go.

DJariya

Just saw this today and freaking loved it.

The 2 hour 28 minute running time didn't feel bloated at all. The movie moves at a really frenetic pace. I wasn't bored even one second. IMO, this was a near action masterpiece. Some of the best editing, fight choreography I have ever seen in a martial arts action movie. Evans did one hell of a job with this movie. I think it's actually better than the first movie. Some of the violence in this movie was ridiculously over the top and borderline NC-17. I mean you had faces being bashed to pieces, blown off, incessant stabbings. This is definitely not for the squeamish.


Poor Rama. The guy took an absolute beating in this movie, plus he was away from his family for over 2 years.

Loved the psychopath hammer girl and baseball bat guy. Hammer Girl's fight scene in the train was an absolute blood bath.

I noticed that Arifin Putra spoke almost perfect English in one scene. I'm guessing he must be mixed nationality.

Why So Blu?

He's German-Indonesian.

EdTheRipper

Going to see this tomorrow. I'm pretty sure that it is just about done at my theater, so it is either now or wait for the BD.

devilshalo

NSFW (and spoiler warning)