rtravis
A rejoint le avr. 2000
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis3
Note de rtravis
This is in response to comments on 'They Came to Cordura' regarding its dramatic weakness and flawed camera work and editing.
The flaws may be real, but they might not be the fault of the filmmaker (writer-director Robert Rossen).
Reportly, the film was taken out of Rossen's hands by the studio and drastically cut and re-cut. The director's original version, about 1/2 hour longer, was apparently much better, making much more dramatic sense.
Further, the movie was shot in CinemaScope, and comments on its poor cinematography and editing are likely based on viewing a crude pan & scan video copy. Such artificial flaws are common with panned & scanned widescreen movies.
.
The flaws may be real, but they might not be the fault of the filmmaker (writer-director Robert Rossen).
Reportly, the film was taken out of Rossen's hands by the studio and drastically cut and re-cut. The director's original version, about 1/2 hour longer, was apparently much better, making much more dramatic sense.
Further, the movie was shot in CinemaScope, and comments on its poor cinematography and editing are likely based on viewing a crude pan & scan video copy. Such artificial flaws are common with panned & scanned widescreen movies.
.
As ludicrous as the narrative and dramatics are, this movie has some of the best, even wonderful, jet-age aerial scenes ever filmed. All in color, too!
Forget the story, discard any literary seriousness..., for genuine vintage military aircraft buffs, the flight footage alone is more than worth the price. Also has great shots of aircraft on the ground. It's like a historical (occassionally hysterical) air museum in motion.
The fact that it avoided grainy/phony stock shots, that the aerial footage was shot especially for this movie, that Chuck Yeager performed much of the stunt flying, and that there is actual original footage of the Bell X-1 in flight, makes this movie a true gem for military aviation buffs.
For Paul Frees fans, his brief appearance is incredibly energetic.
Oddly, the DVD is letterboxed, but the 1950 production (with a delayed 1957 release) was shot before the widescreen era, and should have been uncropped full-screen on video.
.
Forget the story, discard any literary seriousness..., for genuine vintage military aircraft buffs, the flight footage alone is more than worth the price. Also has great shots of aircraft on the ground. It's like a historical (occassionally hysterical) air museum in motion.
The fact that it avoided grainy/phony stock shots, that the aerial footage was shot especially for this movie, that Chuck Yeager performed much of the stunt flying, and that there is actual original footage of the Bell X-1 in flight, makes this movie a true gem for military aviation buffs.
For Paul Frees fans, his brief appearance is incredibly energetic.
Oddly, the DVD is letterboxed, but the 1950 production (with a delayed 1957 release) was shot before the widescreen era, and should have been uncropped full-screen on video.
.
I haven't seen this movie in over 35 years, so I've never seen it on TV or as a video, but, for those commenting on its poor camera-work, please note it was shot in Panavision, a CinemaScope-equivalent anamorphic widescreen process. If you've seen it only on TV, and it was full-screen, not letterboxed, then you've only seen a crude pan-and-scan version which crops out virtually half the frame! In a real sense, you've seen only half the movie.
This fact probably accounts for the comment below, which appeared a few years ago:
"This isn't a very well made film seeing as it suffers from some poor direction and cinematography , for some strange reason there's several scenes where actors are so far out of shot they can't be seen while having a conversation ! But THE DETECTIVE is still worth watching.../ /...Apart from the aforementioned directing the only problem I have with the film is.../"
.
This fact probably accounts for the comment below, which appeared a few years ago:
"This isn't a very well made film seeing as it suffers from some poor direction and cinematography , for some strange reason there's several scenes where actors are so far out of shot they can't be seen while having a conversation ! But THE DETECTIVE is still worth watching.../ /...Apart from the aforementioned directing the only problem I have with the film is.../"
.