So many of you saw this in the theater. Can you please comment on your picture-quality impressions in the theater? Example: Were you struck by the cripsness and clarity/detail of the image or did you remember it having a soft-focus appearance?
I'm very confused. Not since A.I. came out have I seen so many contradicting opinions on the actual film. Is this movie good? Fair? Outstanding? I've only seen Royal, which I loved upon repeat viewings. Is this film too 'loose?' unfocused? uninteresting? Just how bad is the first portion of the picture, and would that portion hold up upon repeat viewings? (I'm not sure why I'm aksing all these questions, I know the only way to find out is to just go buy the thing). Also, some review sites are saying the extras surprisingly suck, a la the Rushmore dvd (which I have not seen). Is there ANY part of this dvd that isn't controversial??
the movie: of his 3 other movies it is most similar to TRT the pacing can seem slow but while I loathed TRT upon first viewing (have learned to like it better with repeat viewings) this movie had a better connection with me on first viewing and also does get better with repeat viewings. I thought the extras were quite good.
Did anybody notice the bluish-purple line across the screen in a few shots? One example would be at timecode 01:00:26. This continues for a couple seconds and then reappears about 5 seconds later. It appears across the bottom 1/3 of the video. I have tried it on a few different set-ups, so I know it is the disc. Is this a source material issue?
I don't think it's an issue, I think Wes Anderson did that on purpose.
I noticed it through the film as well (3-4 spots, maybe more) and wondered what it was...At the end of the film though, you'll noticed those blue lines come from the flashes of the cameras. Several of them. So it feels like it was some kind of tie-in to that end scene from earlier in the movie.
I can't say I remember much about those scenes and why they would have that "foreshadowing" element in them (or even whether it was effective), but those earlier blue lines looked exactly like what was on screen after those end of film camera flashes.
Since I greatly enjoyed the film, I expect I'll review those earlier scenes with greater interest next time through.
Well, I decided to jump in as a blind buy...hoping its more of a Rushmore experience for me than a Royal Tenenbaums experience.
I couldn't turn down the CompUSA price of $14.99 for the two-disc SE. If there's anyone who hasn't picked up their copy yet, you may want to check out a local CompUSA. It looks like the $14.99 (also available on their website, but with S&H) might be their regular price for the set.
I saw this in the theater, and while I don't remember thinking specifically about it being 'soft' I did realize about halfway through that the movie was 'processed' in some way to make it resemble the old TV shows that it was mocking.
FWIW, I really liked this movie. The two words that came to mind when people asked me about it were 'ridiculous & charming."
I think the only major problems this movie has is that the pacing seems a bit off, and perhaps it's not as funny as it could have been. Maybe it would have been better if it got trimmed a bit. Also the lack of close-ups kind of annoyed me, but that's simply the director's style. Other than that I really liked it. I'm not sure it's as good as Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore, but it's decent. Easily worth at least a rental. We can't expect Anderson to make a Rushmore every time, now can we?
I didn't go through the extras... The transfer does seem a bit soft, but I could make out pretty much everything that was going on in the background so I'm not going to complain too much. The sets for this film are amazing. I especially loved the run-down hotel sets.
I spend my forth viewing tonight with Team Zissou and I must retract part of my statement above
there were all but approx 2 scenes (intentionally) where there wasn't a line spoken or a shot composed that wasn't funny
I went from liking this movie tonight to absolutely adoring it the only thing this movie is missing is Kumar
by the way the scene where the blue streak of light across the screen looks most out of place is when Steve walks in on Ned and Jane sleeping together
I think the effect was from a flourescent light in the cabin.
Could it have been an effect of the animorphic lens? I don't recall the quirk you guys are referring to, but from your descriptions it reminds me of a lens flare in low-light on an animorphic lens. It's horizontal and blue and looks more natural when the camera is panning or tilting. If it isn't, it might just look like a stationary line of blue light all the way from one end of the screen to the other. Maybe, maybe not.
This movie is just like TRT to me. I watched it the first time and just sat there not knowing what to think...but for some reason, I wanted to watch it again.
I watched it again and laughed more and loved it. I want to watch it again.
I am in the midst of watching The Life Aquatic right now...just taking a midnight break to post the Weekly RoundUp over in Coupons & Bargains.
I'm thrilled with the DTS track. With all the talk about the potentially soft transfer, I'm surprised fans haven't been raving about the audio track. Transfer, BTW, looks fine to me--but I'm watching on a 28" Hi-Def 16:9 Samsung. Everything looks fine on my set...to me.
Bill Murray was "himself" enough to put me in mind of some of his funnier monologues from Stripes and Groundhog Day. Of course, Wes Anderson's techniques are the real stars of the production.
I think, like for many others, that repeated viewings will open up the film even more for me.
Really, I was very disappointed with it. It all seems to be on the front and center channels. Compared to other movies on my system, it was really weak.