Search results

I also puzzle about its overuse. 2.35:1 (or 2.20:1 or 2.55:1) used to serve as a major aspect (sometimes along with stereophonic sound) of an "event" movie -- yes, to draw people away from t.v., but also to wow and awe us with its panoramic landscapes, carefully framed by directors and DOP's to...

David Lean was, by the late 50's with KWAI, a man who dedicated himself to epics, and used 2.35:1 exclusively, until after RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which tanked critically and at the b.o. He was so discouraged that he stopped making films for fourteen years (just think of the films we might have had if...

Disney kind of did that years ago by adding graphics on the sides of 1.33:1 movies, apparently for vacuous viewers who thought they were losing part of their picture. It's an option on a bunch of their DVD's and Blu-rays. I never use it, of course. Besides, one does not see the curtains in...

Yup. Like I said...weird.

It's weird, and I've been trying to figure it out for years. When I throw a 1.66:1 OAR film up on my 65" OLED, I just instantly feel comfortable and ready for a great film-like experience. That's actually one of the reasons I love most of the Hammer releases and most early British "widescreen"...