 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that Liz is really very good in Cleopatra, especially in the first half. The whole tone of the film is quite modern and theatrical, and her personality is perfectly in tune. I also think the Burton's TAMING OF THE SHREW is one of the most delightful of Shakespeare adaptations.
Let's face it....no modern era epic can come close to BEN HUR , SPARTACUS, EL CID, LAWRENCE, CLEO, etc. Those films had literate screenplays, REAL movie stars, and masterful directors. They all stand up and even improve with age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 30, 2013 - 9:41 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
)All these films play better in a movie theater -- what I wont give to see the ones you mention and many more back in theaters.
It was certainly great seeing Ben-Hur, Spartacus and El Cid back in cinemas in limited release in the early 90s. I'm sure there'd still be an audience for such juicy fare, particularly among those cheesed-off with the current comic book sequel/psychological horror/hard-boiled-serial-killer-hunting-detective output. (Not to mention those delightfully tasteful goofball Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler/Will Ferrell "comedies"). Even with the popularity of home cinema, dimensions like B-H's 2.75:1 just aren't viable on ye olde TV; the wow factor just isn't there.
While you may be right about the appetite for old gold in large metropolitan areas, I can only think about my experience a few months back when I attended a big screen showing of the glorious digital restoration of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA at a theater in the Austin TX area... There was me, and...well, that was it. Advertised for at least a month preceding, on posters and on the theater's website, and one guy in the theater. I'm glad it was me -- awesome film, never looked better. I hope they keep doing that for me, as I'd love to see BEN-HUR, SPARTACUS etc. on the big screen again, in digitally-restored pristine condition! I personally don't care if nobody else comes, other than a twinge of sadness that just about everybody else will have missed something very much worth experiencing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 30, 2013 - 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Uhtred
(Member)
|
While you may be right about the appetite for old gold in large metropolitan areas, I can only think about my experience a few months back when I attended a big screen showing of the glorious digital restoration of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA at a theater in the Austin TX area... There was me, and...well, that was it. Advertised for at least a month preceding, on posters and on the theater's website, and one guy in the theater. I'm glad it was me -- awesome film, never looked better. I hope they keep doing that for me, as I'd love to see BEN-HUR, SPARTACUS etc. on the big screen again, in digitally-restored pristine condition! I personally don't care if nobody else comes, other than a twinge of sadness that just about everybody else will have missed something very much worth experiencing.
At my work, whenever we've had screenings of old films, the turnout has been minimal. Whether that's down to bad advertising or just lack of interest by the public, I don't know. I do know that I had a great time watching Hitchcock's 39 Steps on the big screen. Although that was a British film made before 1970 so I'm not sure if that's allowed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 30, 2013 - 7:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
)All these films play better in a movie theater -- what I wont give to see the ones you mention and many more back in theaters.
It was certainly great seeing Ben-Hur, Spartacus and El Cid back in cinemas in limited release in the early 90s. I'm sure there'd still be an audience for such juicy fare, particularly among those cheesed-off with the current comic book sequel/psychological horror/hard-boiled-serial-killer-hunting-detective output. (Not to mention those delightfully tasteful goofball Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler/Will Ferrell "comedies"). Even with the popularity of home cinema, dimensions like B-H's 2.75:1 just aren't viable on ye olde TV; the wow factor just isn't there.
While you may be right about the appetite for old gold in large metropolitan areas, I can only think about my experience a few months back when I attended a big screen showing of the glorious digital restoration of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA at a theater in the Austin TX area... There was me, and...well, that was it. Advertised for at least a month preceding, on posters and on the theater's website, and one guy in the theater. I'm glad it was me -- awesome film, never looked better. I hope they keep doing that for me, as I'd love to see BEN-HUR, SPARTACUS etc. on the big screen again, in digitally-restored pristine condition! I personally don't care if nobody else comes, other than a twinge of sadness that just about everybody else will have missed something very much worth experiencing.
That's a little sad to hear, Dana. When I attended the various re-releases in the 90s there were good turnouts--and these were several week runs! Ben-Hur received healthy applause at the end, and at El Cid I heard a guy comment to his partner, "This film has lost nothing over the years".
Have things really changed so much in 20 years? Is it that large home screens has sapped the appetite for cinema re-runs? I hope not, as even a 60" screen is not going to give you the glory that was Ben-Hur in a well-equipped cinema. And of course part of the cinema experience is sharing it with others, soaking up the comments, seeing the emotion on people's faces as you leave. Few who were lucky enough to see B-H, Spartacus, Lawrence etc in first-run releases in the 60s will ever forget it.
You know, it could be that they're all philistines in Austin Texas. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't buy blu-rays with the same obsessiveness I originally (and foolishly) did with DVDs but one thing I make a point to buy is these old epics, because I love watching all the detail of REAL people and sets on that kind of scale in HD.
Is Shalako really worse than McKenna's Gold? Probably, I guess, but it's a fine line.
Burton's acting reputation really came from the stage--he was hailed as the next Olivier until he moved into film. Among other things he was quickly and easily bored, so through a long production he was likely to lose interest in his role and it often showed in his performance.
Wow, I agree with all this post (it happends sometimes). I bought DVD's like they were going out of fashion & lost count of the DVD's since given to charity shops with ever being looked at (& many with the shrink-wrap still on). I now buy Blu-rays like I buy soundtrack CD's, I really have to want them. I do make a point of buying all the epics & Roadshows, as they contain things you just don't get today, great photography, great music scores, big stars, real (sometimes jaw dropping) sets, & a lot of real people, not just computer pixels...& they're a lot of fun.
Shalako is worse than McKenna's Gold, but it's a photo finish!
There's a very good (& very thick!) biog. of Richard Burton by Tom Rubython ("And God Created Burton"), & I think it was booze more than boredom, it looks like they all drunk big time then, incl. Liz. The book is very good about all the goings on during the making of Cleopatra, & the stupid, stupid criminal waste that went on then. I'd have to lay the blame on studio head Spyros P. Skouras & producer Walter Wanger, both way out of their depth, all the madness would never have happened with Darryl F. Zanuck. Anyone notice that Liz Taylor gets a bit tubbier as the film goes on? All those months hanging around with all that lovely Italian food & wine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleopatra was probably not the great beauty that Liz Taylor presented.
You're right:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
