View Full Version : Good movie in HD-DVD
doom1701
02-04-2008, 01:48 PM
I think I'm going to let myself buy one more HD-DVD movie; Jen and Kaylee are gone this coming weekend, and some of the guys are coming over to enjoy my new setup. I've only got three movies now (not counting Planet Earth)--Transformers, which one of the guys has said he does not want to see, 300, which I have no interest in seeing (came with the player), and The Bourne Identity--seems like a good movie, but not really the type of film that is awe-inspring in HD.
We tend to gravitate towards Sci-Fi, Superhero, and Action films--but none of us are big fans of ultra-violent fare. What is out there on HD-DVD that would make everybody watch it on the new big screen and go "WOW"?
Edit: I forgot--I've also got Batman Begins on HD. If nothing else comes up, that's a good fall back movie; but we've all seen it quite a few times.
300 is awe-inspiring in standard definition, in HD it's spec-freakin-tacular. It's just a seriously great movie, man. Can't think of why you'd have no interest in it. It's in my top ten.
The grain in 300 might turn non enthusiasts off.
-smak-
Drewster
02-06-2008, 12:19 AM
If it's available, how about Die Hard 4?
Die Hard 4 is only BD.
-smak-
bsnelson
02-07-2008, 11:57 AM
The Italian Job
Beautiful imagery and (IMHO) a decent storyline. Looks fantastic on HD DVD.
Brad
geko29
02-13-2008, 02:53 PM
Blade Runner: The Final Cut. It's a fantastic movie, and the picture is just draw-droppingly beautiful. Seriously, there's no way it ever looked this good when it played in theaters 25 years ago. Don't know if Shooter is too violent for you, but it's a pretty good flick and looks great. Then of course there's the Bournes....
Check this list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=942015) for HD DVD titles ranked by video and audio quality, see if there are some in the top few groups that interest you.
IndyJones1023
02-13-2008, 06:40 PM
A guy who doesn't like 300?
pseudonym
02-17-2008, 12:47 PM
A guy who doesn't like 300?
Maybe he's straight. :)
alienmeatsack
02-17-2008, 11:32 PM
The grain in 300 might turn non enthusiasts off.
-smak-
The lack of anything resembling entertaining might turn everyone else off.
Sorry, but this movie was not what it was made out to be by the gushing critics. It was a long boring HD fest.
I know a little about movies and what is good or not good. And you can make a movie in HD and it still is just a movie. In this case, 300 was a showcase piece for HD-DVD. Nothing more.
Argue against me if you wish but the movie was not what the media made it out to be. It was just a showcase for HD and nothing more.
IndyJones1023
02-18-2008, 07:18 AM
The grain in 300 might turn non enthusiasts off.
-smak-
The lack of anything resembling entertaining might turn everyone else off.
Sorry, but this movie was not what it was made out to be by the gushing critics. It was a long boring HD fest.
I know a little about movies and what is good or not good. And you can make a movie in HD and it still is just a movie. In this case, 300 was a showcase piece for HD-DVD. Nothing more.
Argue against me if you wish but the movie was not what the media made it out to be. It was just a showcase for HD and nothing more.
You make absolutely no sense. If anything, this movie is definitely NOT the one to use to showcase your HD setup. The colors were muted, not vibrant. And how on earth is it not what was advertised? It was exactly as advertised: wall-to-wall action.
alienmeatsack
02-18-2008, 08:20 AM
I make perfect sense. You just aren't using the right decoder ring ;)
I was disappointed with the movie. I sat thru the whole thing and afterwards thought, "well, that was 2 hours of my life I can't get back."
The colors may have been muted but that does not mean it wasn't meant for HD showcasing. Not everything HD is about bright vibrant colors eh.
Don't get me wrong here, I love action, esp when it's crazy intense and doesn't always have a point or purpose except to entertain me. Like the latest Die hard, great movie, but not brain food by any means.
300 didn't entertain me or any of my friends. Which is why I pointed that out. If you or anyone else liked it, great. I didnt. Thats how th cookie crumbles ya know? :)
Don't get me wrong here, I love action, esp when it's crazy intense and doesn't always have a point or purpose except to entertain me. Like the latest Die hard, great movie, but not brain food by any means.
300 didn't entertain me or any of my friends. Which is why I pointed that out. If you or anyone else liked it, great. I didnt. Thats how th cookie crumbles ya know? :)
You are :crazy:.
The latest Die Hard sucked so much that I walked out of the theater halfway and got my money back. It was, by far, the worst movie Bruce Willis has ever been in. I actually felt bad for him because of it. Hell, Armageddon was better. And even Look Who's Talking Too had a far more intelligent plot line.
300 was, without any shadow of a doubt, the best action movie ever made. Period. Until now, I've never met anybody who did not think so. I've never even heard that such people existed. It's so blatantly obvious that it's one of the best movies ever made that I did not even conceive of the possibility of anybody ever doubting it.
Yes, it's just that good.
I mean, how in the hell was your entire theater not cheering and screaming during the movie? It's ridiculously intense and just super-amazing-awesome all the way through. The only flaw with it is the pacing during the non-kicking-ass moments. But you need those in order to, you know, breathe again after all the cheering.
IndyJones1023
02-18-2008, 11:51 AM
I won't muck about with hyperbole like Otto (who has apparently never seen Hudson Hawk) did. But I will say that if you don't like 300, then you must not like action flicks.
Bah. I love Hudson Hawk. It's a classic cheesy flick. Silly and funny and stupid. One of Bruce's good ones. People who didn't like it are taking it too seriously.
mercurial
02-18-2008, 01:42 PM
@#$@ I love Hudson Hawk... Now I agree with Otto on two movies...
IndyJones1023
02-18-2008, 02:48 PM
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
mercurial
02-18-2008, 02:49 PM
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
Well, I have a deep appreciation of stupid, cheesy fun.
IndyJones1023
02-18-2008, 03:18 PM
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
Well, I have a deep appreciation of stupid, cheesy fun.
How dare you, sir, insinuate that I am intelligent! I love stupid movies as much as, if not more so, that your average mouth-breather! But I found nothing redeeming about Hudson Hawk.
mercurial
02-18-2008, 03:25 PM
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
Well, I have a deep appreciation of stupid, cheesy fun.
How dare you, sir, insinuate that I am intelligent! I love stupid movies as much as, if not more so, that your average mouth-breather! But I found nothing redeeming about Hudson Hawk.
Intellectual elitist!
Spire
02-18-2008, 03:40 PM
How dare you, sir, insinuate that I am intelligent! I love stupid movies as much as, if not more so, that your average mouth-breather! But I found nothing redeeming about Hudson Hawk.
My thoughts exactly. I love really smart movies and really stupid movies, as long as they're good.
Hudson Hawk was not good.
IndyJones1023
02-18-2008, 04:16 PM
How dare you, sir, insinuate that I am intelligent! I love stupid movies as much as, if not more so, that your average mouth-breather! But I found nothing redeeming about Hudson Hawk.
My thoughts exactly. I love really smart movies and really stupid movies, as long as they're good.
Hudson Hawk was not good.
Word.
mercurial
02-19-2008, 08:26 AM
How dare you, sir, insinuate that I am intelligent! I love stupid movies as much as, if not more so, that your average mouth-breather! But I found nothing redeeming about Hudson Hawk.
My thoughts exactly. I love really smart movies and really stupid movies, as long as they're good.
Hudson Hawk was not good.
Word.
Bunny! Ball, ball!
tripmac
02-20-2008, 09:59 AM
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
I am/was not a big drinker. But a week before I turned 21 a friend came over with wine cooler and 2 movies: V I Washarsfski and Hudson Hawk. We tried drinking and watching those movies. We stopped both because they were so bad. Even after 3 wine coolers each!
Hudson Hawk was bad!
mercurial
02-20-2008, 10:15 AM
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
I am/was not a big drinker. But a week before I turned 21 a friend came over with wine cooler and 2 movies: V I Washarsfski and Hudson Hawk. We tried drinking and watching those movies. We stopped both because they were so bad. Even after 3 wine coolers each!
Hudson Hawk was bad!
I'm not sure if I'd be more ashamed to admit I watched V.I. Warshawski or drank wine coolers...
Maybe I'm not taking the right drugs before viewing.
I am/was not a big drinker. But a week before I turned 21 a friend came over with wine cooler and 2 movies: V I Washarsfski and Hudson Hawk. We tried drinking and watching those movies. We stopped both because they were so bad. Even after 3 wine coolers each!
Hudson Hawk was bad!
Never seen V.I. Warshawski, but from IMDB, I imagine that it is indeed quite bad.
I don't get all the HH dislike here though. It's a great movie, if you don't take it seriously. It was not meant to be taken seriously, and that's where the critics of it missed the point to begin with. It's silly and stupid and it's supposed to be just that. I mean, when you have thieves timing things by singing songs out loud, how can you really take it seriously?
And wine coolers? Really? That's just nasty.
pseudonym
02-20-2008, 01:24 PM
What is it about action movies that people are willing to forgive them for being moronic and lazy? It's not like there's no such thing as a smart action movie. The Bourne movies were smart. Die Hard was well crafted and at least not deliberately stupid. Three Kings was extremely well-written, imaginatively directed, yet still had plenty of shooting and explosions. Some of the early Bond movies are terrific, as was the last one.
I don't see people forgiving sloppily plotted westerns as long as there are plenty of horses, or bad thrillers as long as someone keeps chasing someone else, so why give action movies a free pass just because something explodes every few minutes?
What is it about action movies that people are willing to forgive them for being moronic and lazy? It's not like there's no such thing as a smart action movie. The Bourne movies were smart. Die Hard was well crafted and at least not deliberately stupid. Three Kings was extremely well-written, imaginatively directed, yet still had plenty of shooting and explosions. Some of the early Bond movies are terrific, as was the last one.
I don't see people forgiving sloppily plotted westerns as long as there are plenty of horses, or bad thrillers as long as someone keeps chasing someone else, so why give action movies a free pass just because something explodes every few minutes?
I don't forgive action movies for such inanity. Thus my dislike of the last Die Hard, which was unforgivably stupid at virtually every turn, IMO.
IndyJones1023
02-20-2008, 02:07 PM
I don't forgive action movies for such inanity. Thus my dislike of the last Die Hard, which was unforgivably stupid at virtually every turn, IMO.
What was so bad about it? Many action scenes were over the top. But I thought it was a pretty solid movie. Very Die Hardian in its intricacies.
What was so bad about it? Many action scenes were over the top. But I thought it was a pretty solid movie. Very Die Hardian in its intricacies.
Seriously?
In the movie, a "hacker" using nothing other than a laptop and apparently a cell phone, along with some "decryption programs" that he hired other hackers to write, is able to:
- hack into the FBI and shut them down completely for a short period of time
- manipulate the stock market
- reroute gas lines and cause an explosion in a specific remote location (a power plant)
- block police and military radio signals over what appears to be an unlimited amount of space and time
- and my favorite: trick the pilot of an F35 Lightning into destroying a truck driving down a freeway, including most of the freeway itself (I just find it funny that when McClain steals the truck, the bad guy's response is not to try to stop him or get it back, but to blatantly draw attention to what he's doing and what's going on by getting a US Military plane involved without any sort of proper authorization)
In short, he not only violates all the fundamental rules of mathematics, but several laws of physics as well. Not to mention that his plan itself is rather stupid to begin with. I mean, what in the hell would you do with all that financial data? Steal money? If you could manipulate the stock markets, you could be a bit more subtle about it and get all the money you wanted. I mean, this data that he's trying to steal/eliminate is somewhat worthless in the big scheme of things. It's not even satisfactorily explained why it's so important to backup at this weird facility where they have it backed up.
Also, I've rarely seen a movie with such bad over-acting. Justin Long is particularly terrible, although Timothy Olyphant was trying hard to one-up him on that score. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was so-so in the first part of the movie, but then becomes ridiculously bad for the last half (after she's kidnapped).
The entirety of the plot and acting is basically just a device to keep the audience's brain shut off while they're waiting for the next thing to explode. When people hear the techno-babble, they don't question it, they ignore it and stop thinking too hard about the plot. And this works fine if you don't realize that everything they're saying is complete and total crap, which does indeed describe most people.
IndyJones1023
02-20-2008, 03:01 PM
How do those ridiculousnesses (ridiculousnessi?) trump other movies? You see that kind of stuff all the time.
How do those ridiculousnesses (ridiculousnessi?) trump other movies? You see that kind of stuff all the time.
I don't see it that often. Or at least, if I do see that kind of stuff, then I think that the movie sucks.
The reason Die Hard 4 was one of the worst was the combination of all the plot holes, lack of plot, horrible acting, and general idiocy. I mean, sure, every movie has some problem with it. But Die Hard 4 had very little about it that was actually redeeming in nature. Good action sequences, and that's all there is to it.
Hey, I like my movies to have more depth than a saucer.
IndyJones1023
02-20-2008, 03:44 PM
Keep in mind that Olyphant's character previously worked for the government. He set up backdoors to exploit for just this scam.
Keep in mind that Olyphant's character previously worked for the government. He set up backdoors to exploit for just this scam.
Backdoors in the gas line control system (assuming he had access to same) still would not let you blow up a power substation remotely. And I doubt that stock markets make their code available for government agents to tamper with.
In fact, the only remotely feasible thing is him shutting down the FBI, but then even that's not feasible because you simply can't sneak backdoors into security related code, not with modern programming practices at high security facilities.
IndyJones1023
02-20-2008, 04:10 PM
You need to look up this phrase: suspension of disbelief.
Suspension of disbelief is when I accept that space travel to other stars or that time travel or something like is possible to make the movie work. It's when you accept a large impossible thing in order to advance the plot.
It's not when every single little thing that the main characters do is a) impossible and b) doesn't make any sense to begin with.
In other words, I can suspend disbelief to allow a movie to continue... until the movie comes up and smacks me upside the head with that disbelief repeatedly for a couple hours.
"The Core" (by far, the number 1 worst movie ever made) suffered from this same problem. I can suspend disbelief for a "journey to the center of the earth" thing, and I even don't care about the nonsensical reason for the journey ("the core stopped spinning, we have to make it spin again with nukes"). But when they even get the most elementary basic physical laws completely wrong, it doesn't allow me to continue to suspend disbelief. There's only a certain number of things I can suspend disbelief for before I give up on the movie. One or two things is fine, freakin' fifty is not.
Mysteryman
02-21-2008, 10:38 AM
"The Core" (by far, the number 1 worst movie ever made) suffered from this same problem. I can suspend disbelief for a "journey to the center of the earth" thing, and I even don't care about the nonsensical reason for the journey ("the core stopped spinning, we have to make it spin again with nukes").
LOL is that seriously the plot of the movie? I have heard it's horrible, but..wow that's bad.:)
"The Core" (by far, the number 1 worst movie ever made) suffered from this same problem. I can suspend disbelief for a "journey to the center of the earth" thing, and I even don't care about the nonsensical reason for the journey ("the core stopped spinning, we have to make it spin again with nukes").
LOL is that seriously the plot of the movie? I have heard it's horrible, but..wow that's bad.:)
Actually, it gets far, far worse than that.
Give this a read: http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html
WinBear
02-21-2008, 12:05 PM
"The Core" (by far, the number 1 worst movie ever made) suffered from this same problem. I can suspend disbelief for a "journey to the center of the earth" thing, and I even don't care about the nonsensical reason for the journey ("the core stopped spinning, we have to make it spin again with nukes").
LOL is that seriously the plot of the movie? I have heard it's horrible, but..wow that's bad.:)
Actually, it gets far, far worse than that.
Give this a read: http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html
One word: Unobtainium
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.