Search results

Elias Koteas was good in the role, but the guy was waaaay too old! Or he looked it, at least. He, Thompson and Stoltz are the same age, but Koteas was already going bald, and his skinhead look didn't hide that. Guy was 26 going on 40! :D

Since I think "Baby" is easily the worst of those films... it does! ;) "SKoW" does rewrite "PiP" but it's still a much more satisfying movie. My ranking: 1) SKoW 2) PTAA 3) FBDO 4) PiP 5) SHaB

But "Heaven's Gate" was a notorious flop from an Oscar-winning director, and that meant people remembered it and it owned its own legend. Also - and more importantly - "Gate" has gotten a critical reappraisal over the last 40 years that's earned it a much stronger reputation. "Only the Lonely"...

But those had cult followings. "Only the Lonely" is a movie that didn't have much of an audience in 1991 and AFAIK hasn't amassed one since then. "Lonely" doesn't even get viewed as part of the "traditional" Hughes filmography, as he neither wrote nor directed it. I stand by my comment: zero...

Zero chance Criterion decides to release a movie that got mediocre reviews and did little business and seems to have a very low profile 30 years after its release.

I'm genuinely shocked Paramount sells this so cheaply given the "Pink" BD is less than a year old and still going for $30 MSRP. I guess they figure everyone who wants "Pink" and is willing to pay $20+ for it already has it!

It's a heck of a deal if you don't own any of the BDs - $27 MSRP and $20 right now at Amazon. $4 a movie - and "Pretty in Pink" alone sells for $20 on Amazon, with a $29.98 MSRP!

Yeah, I'm sure the Uni looks worse. I didn't suspect the Arrow was a poor transfer - I just figured the source was ugly. That's the challenge I run into with movies like "She's Having a Baby". I have enough familiarity with 80s film stocks to have some clue how they look but I don't know the...

I never saw the original "Weird Science" BD but I thought the Arrow release looked pretty mediocre. For whatever reason, it simply appears that the original photography for a bunch of Hughes movies was blah. As I mentioned, with "Baby" I erred on the side of the assumption that's just how...

The worst culprits were some interior shots, but better-lit scenes seemed fine, IMO. I think all 3 of those movies are pretty ugly but when I reviewed, I erred on the side of accepting the grain as "original". At least we can't accuse Paramount of using noise reduction! :D After last year's...

I attributed most of the blah nature of "Baby" to the source photography. It, "Pink" and "Wonderful" are all objectively pretty ugly movies. You feel there are issues with "Baby" beyond the original photography?