Daniel P

Member
  • Content count

    372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daniel P

  • Rank
    AV Forum Member
  1. So any word on the 2014 AFL season being shown in proper HD?
  2. So has anybody compared the US version with the local one yet? Safe to buy locally?
  3. Thanks, yeah there must be gold in there, although it was no heavier than the title next to it!
  4. Hugo was $50 in my JB! Is there another film inside the box or something?? If it included a separate release of Voyage to the Moon then I would understand the price.
  5. To say he is overrated as a director is a claim that you need to back up - what is wrong with his direction? If you don't like the films he makes, then that is your subjective taste. But to say he is no good as a director points towards technical faults. Maybe you mean the films he makes are overrated, again this would be down to your tastes. Wouldn't call him underrated or overrated, but in my opinion he is one film maker that keeps delivering on the hype. He is definitely one of my favourites in the past 20 years, and has been consistently brilliant all along. Inglorious Basterds is an excellent film, perhaps in some regards his most mature, while at the same time equally as absurd as anything he's done. I thought after Jackie Brown maybe he would fall, and his Grindhouse effort was sub par for his lofty standards, quite forgettable amongst his oeuvre. But with the Kill Bill's and Basterds he resurrected himself with aplomb. I must say Django Unchained has me very excited, his films constantly deliver. Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson are 2 filmmakers that feed on their inspirations, and have constantly delivered quality and I always await the next film from both of them without patience.
  6. Ok awesome, thanks for that mate! yes, they are idiots hey, think they would work this kind of thing out!
  7. Is yours the single disc release, which is now $20 at JB? Or the original 'triple play' release?
  8. Hi, Couldn't see mention if we got the unrated version like in the US, I assume we did but wanted to be sure before buying. The Aus (single disc release) disc says approx 104mins - but the running times are as follows on UK and USA: "Theatrical" (103:20) and "Unrated" (109:18) Would like confirmation of the running time before I buy it, because approx. 104 mins seems more like the "Theatrical" version to me, and there is no mention of more than one version on the back of the Aus Blu box. Can anybody confirm the running time of the Aus disc for me if possible please? EDIT - sorry, this is the single disc version, and this is the back cover: http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5525/img1938g.jpg
  9. The Avatar 3D was much better imo, I couldn't help but notice all the actors looked like 2D objects within a 3D plane. There was no depth to the actors at all, looked like a cheap 3D job compared to Avatar. I think because Avatar had more CGI it got away with it more, it just looked gimmicky in TF3 I reckon. Some wider shots looked great, and the CGI scenes all looked great, but kinda distracted me noticing paper thin looking actors (although they matched the paper thin characters, and thin plot lol).
  10. I agree completely. The first Transformers was a really cool "summer" blockbuster, and one of Bay's best films I think. Still not a brilliant film though, I thought the first one was probably 15 minutes too long, too much metal. The 2nd film I saw at IMAX, and I enjoyed it quite a lot, not quite as much as the first. It was probably a good 30 minutes too long, again too much robot battle for me. The 3rd film I saw at IMAX in 3D, and apart from the fact it didn't take advantage of what IMAX has best to offer - using the whole screen (at least part of TF2 was shot on IMAX cams) - but apart from that, the film could do with an hour cut out of it. I enjoyed the first 30 minutes, and then the first 15 minutes of the climactic battle. But there was none of what made the first film good, it had no heart as you put it. Far far too much metal again... I think I enjoyed the trailer to Mission Impossible 4 on the IMAX screen more than the entire Transformers 3 film. I seriously think Bay should have made one big 2.5 hour Transformers film, and ended it there. There is simply not enough story to carry 3 films.
  11. Well she sux anyway, so no great loss IMO...
  12. Cheers, hadn't see that link.
  13. I enjoyed (and still enjoy after repeat viewings) both the first 2 Transformers films. I guess the first one is probably superior, but the sequel has it's moments of greatness also. Both go on about 30 minutes too long though. Some people carry on about the 2nd one being crap and insulting, but both films are kinda silly mindless action films, so the range of intelligence that is inherent with them both is minimal. I saw the 2nd one at IMAX, and the shifting aspect ratio's were gobsmacking - even if they were a fair bit less exciting than the Batman Begins IMAX experience. Word is that this might be the best of the 3, so it should be ejnoyable again. Can't wait to see it at IMAX 3D!! Does anyone know if any of Transformers 3 was shot on IMAX cameras again? I can't find any info anywhere that suggests it was, other than the print has been converted to 65mm to be screen in IMAX - not that it was shot on 65mm though. So I am guessing not...
  14. Those screencap comparisons show some obvious improvement in detail in some shots, and none in others - even more details in a couple of the theatrical versions, like in clouds on one shot for instance. The tinting works against the detail at times also. I'm not buying the EE's on Blu, as I prefer the cuts of the TE's and will stick with those - but you would think they could get it right for one of the releases.