I'm only watching films on Blu-ray this holiday season. Equipped with a blu-ray player, 60" LCD TV and a surround sound system at my parents, I have made a fort in the basement, and from their continued my film consumption.
Public Enemies - I'd seen this in the theatres. It's typical Michael Mann. The musical score sounds like he pulled it straight out of Last of the Mohicans. There's some intense gunfights. And for the most part it looks pretty. It was shot in several different formats, all Sony cameras, ranging from the F35 all the way down to the EX3. And while using the little EX3's allows him to do things with the camera he couldn't otherwise do, and it lends a sense of immediacy to some scenes, and it allows him to shoot in some really low light situations, the shift can be jarring. Its not so bad on Blu-ray. It was alot worse in theatres when the image was blown up. Now only a few shots look grainy as shit. All in all a pretty good film, even if it gets really cliche in parts. Not Mann's best, but not his worst.
Star Trek vs Star Trek - In the past two weeks I've finally seen both Star Trek films. I watched JJ Abrams crowd pleasing romp first, and then a few days ago watched the original motion picture, something I'd only seen in short bursts up until now. My thoughts? The only Star Trek I really got into was Next Generation. I was never a big Trekkie. Jonathan Frakes made terrible films. But the one thins I liked was that Star Trek was more straight up sci-fi as opposed to Star Wars, which was all about high adventure and massive battles. Star Trek was more concerned with deeper philosophical arguements, and by the time Next Generation hit, authenticity about how things in the Star Trek universe would work. The original film, with all its carbon units, was pretty damn great. Sure the special effects don't stand up, but everything else was everything I expected and more. It had deeper philosophical meaning behind it, and allowed itself to take its time. It didn't try to wow you with its visuals, although some of the more psychadelic 2001-esque visuals are still breathtaking. Abrams on the other hand wanted to get bums in seats, and make a films that was somewhere between the original motion picture and Star Wars. It is entertaining, but nothing more. It doesn't make you think. I don't think I'll ever watch it again. But then again, I ain't an Abrams fan. So if they are to do battle in deep space, I will but my money on Shatner.
Terminator Salvation - The Terminator series should have ended after T2. T3 sucked balls. And this new incarnation, while action packed, is a vapid mess. I love me some giant robots. And that was almost enough to cover up the massive plot holes, but once the film was over, I found myself asking numerous questions. Why is the resistance comprised of 3 men that live in a submarine? How did Marcus survive a massive blast at the beginning of the film unscathed? (Yes, he could have survived, but he would have been sans skin.) If it was so easy for the chopper to enter Skynet to get John Connor out, why did they never mount an assault, because there was absolutely no defenses. If John Connor exists, wouldn't he know that he is successful in sending back Kyle Reese (Adam at work pointed that out before I saw the film). Is it possible to do a heart transplant in the middle of the desert with very little technological resources? They do very little to sort out all the time travel convolution. In fact, they do very little to move the story along, save some big explosions. It is a colossal mess. Which is sad, because I put my money on this over Abrams Star Trek, and I lost. At least he had the brains to use timetravel wisely.
Watch this. Funniest KO ever!