Always and 1941 on BD 5-5-15 (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

I didn't think either one was "self indulgently mushy" as you call it. Imo they were both earnest and wonderfully sentimental. And AI is another underrated masterpiece from Spielberg. I remember when it came out Spielberg was blamed for the ending when it was all Kubricks.

 

[Konstantinos]

Spencer Tracy was earnest, Richard Dreyfuss is smug.

And the "It was better with war pilots" thing has already been covered, but like A.I., it's a case where Spielberg cares enough to make it self-indulgently mushy, but not enough to make it subtle.

Haven't seen the original.

So, you're saying that one is better?


By the way, I think 1941 is my worst Spielberg film (I have seen all except Duel and Lincoln).

I could never get into it.

 

[Thomas T]

Spencer Tracy was earnest, Richard Dreyfuss is smug.

And the "It was better with war pilots" thing has already been covered, but like A.I., it's a case where Spielberg cares enough to make it self-indulgently mushy, but not enough to make it subtle.

As always (no pun intended), it's funny how two people can see the same films and have such differing opinions. I find A Guy Named Joe a slog to get through (though I must confess outside of her screwball comedies, Irene Dunne does zero for me) and Spencer Tracy may be earnest but he's also dull which is something he rarely is. I find its sentimentality grating and calculating. Yet on the other hand, Always has me choking up like a baby, the sentimentality (hey, it's inherent in the material) seems more organic than manipulative (unlike Joe) and there's that gorgeous John Williams score and if I die and go to Heaven, if the angels don't look like Audrey Hepburn I'm going to be very disappointed.


Just my two cents.

 

[Ejanss]

As always (no pun intended), it's funny how two people can see the same films and have such differing opinions. I find A Guy Named Joe a slog to get through (though I must confess outside of her screwball comedies, Irene Dunne does zero for me) and Spencer Tracy may be earnest but he's also dull which is something he rarely is. I find its sentimentality grating and calculating. Yet on the other hand, Always has me choking up like a baby, the sentimentality (hey, it's inherent in the material) seems more organic than manipulative (unlike Joe) and there's that gorgeous John Williams score and if I die and go to Heaven, if the angels don't look like Audrey Hepburn I'm going to be very disappointed.

I was always cool on AGNJ too, but like Inherit the Wind, I'll believe that other people believe that anything with Tracy in it is a classic. Although I'll agree that the sentimentality played a lot better during the "personal sacrifice" of wartime.

And again, aerial forest fires were more compelling in the Disney movie.


Here, it seemed like "Spielberg's Toybox", where he wanted to be the director who gave Audrey Hepburn her comeback just for the self-indulgent thrill of it, wanted to be the first on his block to discover Holly Hunter for an A-role, and

Spoiler

Kevin Costner meeting his dead dad in Field of Dreams

was a lot more organic than knowing that it was going to show up in a Spielberg film sooner or later, whether it was in the original or not.


Like Amistad and Hook, it was just one of those films I wanted to like on paper, but he got too personal about it and pushed his luck. If he had done it with half the wartime-fantasy wonder of that Amazing Stories episode, where he was getting all the Tracy-love out of his system...

 

[AshJW]

And AI is another underrated masterpiece from Spielberg. I remember when it came out Spielberg was blamed for the ending when it was all Kubricks.

The ending of A.I. is the only part that I liked ...

 

[theonemacduff]

I've always liked Always, partly because I am a total airplane geek, and Spielberg filmed the flying scenes in a kind of a new way. In previous movies, the cockpit scenes were really tight, with no sense of the surrounding sky (Red Tails, filmed a year or so back has the same problem in many if not most of its cockpit scenes), but Speilberg moved the camera back so you do indeed get a sense that they are up there, even though you know they really aren't. As well, he manages to match the flying scenes really well with the cockpit scenes, so you aren't constantly taken out of the film; that is, the light and colour match really well. In addition, the scene where John Goodman sees a plane detonate in mid air, and puts his hand against the glass, as if to prevent it, to pull it back somehow, well, that was an astonishing bit of acting, a shocker; and the scene where Holly Hunter is talking to Goodman about her loss, and basically disolves into jelly, that too has an amazing power. Sentimental? No. Sentimentality is unearned emotion; the acting here successfully earns the emotion for the audience, makes it real, stirs the heart. One of my faves. My big problem now is, do I purchase the set and get several films I already own, or go for a more limited list of the stand-alone releases, but pay a higher price? I liked 1941 too, when it came out, even though it seemed choppy and was kind of exhausting. Sugarland Express I always thought was a little masterwork, although I'll admit to being confused by some people's reaction to the Goldie Hawn character, inclined to give her too much slack (because she was Goldie Hawn the movie star) when the character is written as a narcissistic bitch who gets her husband killed, meaning, the state of Texas was probably right to take her child away from her, thus, the entire journey is doomed from the get-go, and you can sense it, in those first prison scenes.

 

[Dee Zee]

Received my blu of 1941. Look forward to seeing the theatrical cut again.

 

[cb1]

I watched the extended 1941 last night. I thought it looked great. I really enjoyed it.

 

[Dee Zee]

Watched the theatrical version today, the extended version is also on the disc. I first saw this film in an empty theater in 1979. What a strange movie. Great open, the dance hall/ riot is just mesmerizing. The tank going through the paint factory is a sequence everyone should see at least once. Belushi is wasted, pun intended. Robert Stack is right on. So much of the film is not funny but there are signs of life throughout. And a great John Williams score. The HD picture looked very good.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I've always had a bit of a soft spot for 1941. It's a gargantuan, juvenile mess, but that's kind of the point. The whole thing is incredibly subversive, and I'd argue that it was somewhat ahead of its time, anticipating both the gag-a-minute style of the Zucker Brothers and the relentless, epic ridiculousness of something like Pirates of the Caribbean.


I was fortunate enough to go to a screening of the extended cut a couple of months ago, with several members of the cast and crew in attendance. The movie played remarkably well on the big screen, and the audience loved it.


If nothing else, John Williams's score is insanely catchy, and the miniatures work is incredible.


I actually do prefer the theatrical version, as I think the extra footage drags the movie out a little too long, but it's great to finally have them both in one release.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

The extended version is to me a far more cohesive and better film.

 

[Tino]

Count me in as a fan of the theatrical cut. The extended cut imo seriously drags the film down with unfunny and unnecessary bits.

 

[Tino]

But.....happy to have both on one disc. Everybody wins![emoji12]

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

Spencer Tracy was earnest, Richard Dreyfuss is smug.

And the "It was better with war pilots" thing has already been covered, but like A.I., it's a case where Spielberg cares enough to make it self-indulgently mushy, but not enough to make it subtle.

Subtlety can be so overrated. It is commonplace for wannabe critics to automatically demand subtlety in everything, as if it were inherently more valuable than another approach.


In my opinion, it shows when one is just pretending to sound superior or, say, smug...

 

[Mike Robertson]

Just finished watching the theatrical version of 1941. Watched the extended version first and really enjoyed it. Visually it looked extremely good and the musical score was great. One of my favorite scenes is where the P-40 lands on the highway and taxies up to the gas pumps.


One thing that bothered me was the sometimes shrillness of the dialog when the characters were shouting. Was it that way in the DVD? I gave my copy away so I can't check it.

 

[moovtune]

There was a disclaimer about the distortion on occasion in the dialog ... it was fixed as best as could be but exists in the original material.

 

[Sam Favate]

I thoroughly enjoyed the blu-ray; much better than the DVD, despite the limitations in the source. One thing that always bugged me about the movie - going back to the original - is the often muddy picture when light sources (like windows) are directly behind characters. Otherwise, it looked better than I've seen it in 35 years.

 

[SilverWook]

Before you chuck your old non anamorphic 1941 DVD, a couple still sections didn't make the cut. The stills that did make it to the Blu Ray are presented so tiny, I frequently had to stand close to my 50 inch screen just to make them out. The text of the movie reviews apparently didn't make it either. Time to get another double disc BD case!


And the closing credits on the documentary are missing. What gives?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Watched Always last night. I have to say I really enjoy the film. All of the performances are great and it is beautiful to look at. I am a bit biased because I love all the aircraft and flying scenes as I have been working toward a pilots license and would love to fly those planes. Sure, it is a sentimental story but a wonderfully shot and acted one in a gorgeous setting.