DVD Review HTF Review: To Live and Die in L.A. - Special Edition (Highly Recommended!!) (1 Viewer)

[DeanR]

John Rice, Darlanne Fluegel teaches acting at the University of Central Florida Film School, per IMDB.

 

[BruceKimmel]

Agreed, this is the way the film looked in theaters. That's why I sometimes take exception to these "reviews" by people who admit they've never seen the film in the theaters, in this case just on VHS - therefore, they don't really know what the film is supposed to look like and they end up blaming the transfer, which is usually not to blame at all. So, people reading this review might think MGM did a bad job or a mediocre job when, in fact, they did a damn near perfect job, which the DIRECTOR of the film reiterates. It's almost like DVD "reviewers" want or expect every film to look the same. Every decade has had its "style" and one can't blame transfers for replicating the style - I can't tell you how many transfers of 70s movies get knocked because the excellent transfers have the temerity to actually replicate the heavily-filtered photography that was in fashion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As others have stated, this film was not a great looking film, visual-wise in its theatrical run in 1985. The scenes with grain and softness were very similar to another Petersen film that came out about a year later "The Manhunter". However, I love both films and I can't wait to finally have this one on dvd too.





Crawdaddy

 

[Michael Reuben]

Crawdaddy, just a point of clarification: I do think that TLaDiLA is a "great looking film", in the sense that it's visually interesting, expressive and always surprising.

Unlike many contemporary DVD viewers and reviewers, I don't consider the presence of "grain" or "softeness" in a film image to be a blemish, any more than the presence of a visible brush stroke in a painting would be considered a blemish. One of the most pernicious effects of the move away from theatrical viewing to home theater has been the redefinition of viewer expectations of how film should look. I often get the feeling that people now expect everything to look like a video image, which tends to be flat and without texture. That's why we always get threads complaining about the "transfer" whenever a film is released that uncompromisingly exploits the look of film. (Obvious example are Janusz Kaminski's work for Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan, A.I. and Minority Report.)

M.

 

[Jason Perez]

Bruce Kimmel,

Thanks for your observations on the transfer! One of the great things about this forum is that people can respond to, or add observations to, a review. What other sites offer that? This site is usually filled with people that are not only extremely knowledgeable about films, but respectful of one another, so it is always nice to have their input! Thanks again guys!

Thanks for your comments, and for supplementing my review!!! You guys are great!!!!

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's true, but it's still not visually beautiful to my eyes. For instance, I think "Night of the Hunter" is a beautiful film visual-wise, though, many of the scenes that supposedly were outdoor scenes were actually filmed on an indoor sound stage, however, they were still stunning scenes. To me, TLaDiLA is not a pretty film to watch in my opinion.




Crawdaddy

 

[JohnRice]

Jason,

I enjoyed your review. There is still a valid point that many DVD reviews these days do not really take into consideration the intent of the film maker, or sometimes just the limitations under a film was made. I think you realize this and will probably consider it a bit more in reviews of catalog titles.

Still, saying every decade has it's style couldn't be further from the truth. While there may tend to be some trends and copying in some films, most are not done that way. Terminator 2 and Seven came out in the same decade, and even though they are both mainstream Hollywood films, they look nothing alike. Gone with the Wind and Citizen Kane came out only a couple years apart and they bear very little resemblance.

Films have an intended look. That look is whatever the film makers choose it to be. If the studio does their job right, we get that look on the DVD. To Live and Die in LA is a gritty movie both in visuals and theme. That's the way it is intended to be.

 

[Gary Kellerman]

Seriously, a couple of times while viewing this DVD, I had to remind myself that this was once a mono soundtrack.

Jim, the above was a quote from your review. The IMDB states the mix was DOLBY. I first saw this film on HBO a number of years back. It was in Dolby Stereo and did have Surround Sound. I would say their remix was based from that soundtrack and not from a mono soundtrack.

 

[Michael Reuben]

To me, TLaDiLA is not a pretty film to watch in my opinion.

I understand. It's an "eye of the beholder" issue.

M.

 

[BruceKimmel]

JohnRice: Please read my post again - I think I'm pretty clear in my meaning. Aside from that, I most respectfully disagree with you in just about every way. Decades have styles that are in favor, there can't be any question about that. It doesn't mean, nor did I imply it to mean, that all films look the same. If you don't think decades have "style" just what is that shaky cam thing that's been going on for the last six years? Just what is that rapid fire MTV-like editing that's been going on for the entire decade? Not every film, but those two things are very much of the last few years. Yes, there were a handful of verite films before that, but not ones that look like the NYPD Blue style. In the seventies, highly filtered photography was all the rage - it's not now. Not EVERY film in the seventies, but definitely enough to call it the seventies look. After Citizen Kane, there was a whole host of Toland-like films. I could go on.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm torn over whether to even respond at this point, but I'll go ahead and clarify for those interested.

Of course, there are "styles," but those styles are rarely really connected to a "decade." One exception comes from set design. Clothes, furnishings and such are often connected to a period of time, but despite the belief to the contrary, shooting styles aren't so much. Early in film, there tended to be a certain look to films, but that was mostly due to the limited choice of film stocks.

My response came from this statement.....

Every decade has had its "style" and one can't blame transfers for replicating the style - I can't tell you how many transfers of 70s movies get knocked because the excellent transfers have the tererity to actually replicate the heavily-filtered photography that was in fashion.

This clearly implies 70s films were heavily filtered. The film being discussed is grainy, which was probably achieved by pushing the film. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I recall no unusual filtering in it, certainly not heavy filtering. I'm curious exactly what types of filters were used in the 70s that define the "heavily-filtered photography that was in fashion" that are not used much anymore.

EDIT...Stupid me. To Live and Die in LA came out in the 80s. Point still stands, though.

Sergio Leone did several Westerns in the 60s. They all had a common, recognizable visual style. Hitchcock films of the decade had a radically different style and Bergman films were completely different from the other two. So, I don't know how one identifies a "60s style." Rapid-fire editing and hand held camera work is kind of popular now, but so are many others. Hell, there's even a diaper commercial imitating Magnolia.

That's my point. An absolute statement was made that I find severely over simplified.



The more I think about To Live and Die in LA the more excited I am to see it again. Maybe I'll make an evening of outrageous chases out of it, Ronin and Terminator 3.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Got mine today. Looks GREAT in my opinion. I just skimmed through the movie, but the documentary featurette is so compelling, I couldn't stop watching it. Well worth the $15 you'll pay retail.

Frankly, the film hasn't looked better in nearly 20 years. This is a title I've been begging for since DVD was introduced and I'm overjoyed that MGM helped sort out the rights issues.

 

[Damin J Toell]

That's my point. An absolute statement was made that I find severely over simplified.

And I believe that what you perceive as absoluteness and simplicity has been clarified for you.

DJ

 

[JohnRice]

Damin, I appreciate your response, but what you aren't understanding is that I completely and thoroughly comprehend and understand what Bruce was saying.....and I think it is a type of boiling down that is said all too often in a effort to imply universals that don't exist. It is easy to say "every decade has its style" about trends, but that statement clearly implies a uniformity to almost every film. For every identifiable "style of the decade" there are a dozen others just as worthy of mention. Now if someone said that during a period of time, any combination from a list of a dozen or two dozen (or however many) characteristics were popular, I could agree completely.

 

[Garry Cowell]

Ok now some other people have finally seen it...

A couple of things I wanna discuss.Car Chase

What I love about this is the fact is comes from absolutely no where. The car ain't some hi-performance type affair. I mean Chance is driving a Dodge pickup most of the movie, and there no pointer's that he's the god of drivers. More importantly though, we've seen how stupidly reckless he is so the possibility of the chase going sooo wrong is always at the forefront of your mind not to mention Vuchovich's!! He deserves an Oscar for his filling-his-pants back seat sweating!

I love the scene where Friedkin drops all the sound of the engines from the soundtrack and all you can hear is the heavy breathing.

But what I really like about the chase is that it has a twist! I *dropped down dead* when they're sat in the meeting room after their bodged heist and they then get assigned the task to find themselves!!

Ending

I LOVE the ballsysness (is that a word?) of the ending! The 'hero' takes a shotgun blast to the face!
Bllaaaaooow! He's dead! Movie over!

Not to mention you see his face come off!! Leaving no doubt that he's DEAD! No L.A. Confidential type affair where you think the guy's dead but NO he survived the injury lameness.

Homoerotic Overtones

Not sure how these got in there (Friedkin carried them over from Cruising??) but they pretty much start when you see Masters kiss a bloke who turns into the blonde woman and then when they're all naked in the sauna and Masters is talking about making the money and the hardest part...

"You ever tried working with rubber gloves on? It's impossible!"

But the rest of the dialogue is chocka with them!

"The cheques in the mail, I love you and I promise not
to cum in your mouth!"

"Your taste's in your ass!"

"You're beautiful"

...and who needs Tarantino's Top Gun analogy with the immortal...

"I'll never 'end up' my partner!"

 

[BruceKimmel]

Thank you, Damin, but I'm afraid it's a losing battle. I felt my statements were pretty clear, but people have their own things and can disagree all they like as long as they don't read into things meanings that simply aren't there, as you've pointed out.

 

[BruceKimmel]

Oh, and BTW, watched To Live and Die in LA Saturday and it's terrific, and Mr. Friedkin is right when he says it never looked this good in the theater. He reiterates that it was shot on the cheap, is supposed to look gritty (that's what Robby Muller "does"), and basically he says it was "hit and run" moviemaking.

I didn't love this film when I first saw it on its initial release, but time has been good to it, and it really is a crackerjack piece of filmmaking, with really terrific performances.

 

[Jeff_HR]

Mine should be arriving any minute now. The wait is almost over!

 

[Felix Martinez]

I believe Michael Mann has a visual style that is heavily tied into what was popular in the 1980s, even in his films made beyond that decade.

An argument could be made that Mann's style was assimilated by others in the '80s, so he's just being true to himself.

Cheers,

 

[Allan Cast]

Just because you see the movie in the theatres doesnt mean you are seeing the film exactly the way the Filmakers wanted. Ive been to alot of theatres with crappy projectionists.

Anyhoo, I saw this film many years ago on VHS and was highly impressed with Friedkins visual storytelling style. I thought Peterson was really cool too which led me to seek out his other work..which led me to Michael Mann (Thank God!).

Seeing it on DVD again was not as satisfiying. Ultimately I feel the film just doesnt stand up anymore.

The chase scene, which blew my mind when I first saw it , was'nt as intense and thrilling as I remembered (Maybe its time for me to upgrade to a large Plasma screen! I wish!).

I did enjoy Friedkin's commentary. I could'nt believe it when he said this was the best transfer of the film!