In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews

It's not too often that myself and the Captain agree, but when we do...

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Ant-Man

Hello MoFos! It is once again time for At the Theater with The Gunslinger45! Summer is well underway, and that means summer blockbusters. And Marvel has a strong hold on the summer blockbuster market. From the Avenger’s to last year’s surprising success Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel usually pays off with a good product and has done so to become the highest grossing franchise in the world. It's latest installment Ant-Man was originally supposed to be directed by Edgar Wright. Who is one of those directors everyone else seems to love and adore, but I think is just okay. Was never a fan of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz was hilarious, and I never bothered to see The World’s End. But he has a huge fan base, and many were very curious to see his take on Ant-Man. This is significant, since Ant-Man is not exactly a hugely popular character, despite being one of the founding Avengers. More on that later. But even with Edgar Wright on board I was not exactly chomping at the bit to see this film. So when Edgar left the production (citing creative differences) a lot of the buzz surrounding the film went away. I myself decided to still see the movie, but I felt it was more out of obligation then genuine interest. Like going to see a movie your girl really wants to see but you couldn't care less for. You don’t care about the movie, but you dig your lady and you want to make her happy. Well that was Ant-Man for me. Love Marvel Studios, but not crazy on the Ant-Man idea. Or at least those were my initial feelings. After a few trailers I actually looked at the film with more genuine interest than before. Even to the point where I was actually looking forward to this movie. And you know what? The movie is actually pretty damn good. Way better then I was expecting. But how good was it? Well grab your Pym Particles and mount your flying ant steed, this is Ant-Man!

We open the film in 1989, where a really good CGI render of 80’s Michael Douglas steps into SHIELD HQ looking like Gordon Gekko. But instead he is playing Dr Hank Pym, a scientist and sometimes SHIELD field operative. He is pissed at Howard Stark (Tony’s Dad) for trying to duplicate his Pym Particles. These are rare subatomic particles that can change the space between atoms, causing items to shrink. But while small the person gains super strength, and has the ability to lift around 50 his body weight just like an ant. He has used these particles in a suit in many super secret covert missions as the Ant-Man. But he has not shared the formula with SHIELD. Naturally SHIELD and the US military want the tech. I mean war would be revolutionized on the logistical side alone, not even counting the combat and espionage potential. But Hank is a scientist first, and does not want his work abused. So he quits SHIELD, punches a guy from the defense department and the face, and may have well given Stark the finger. He then starts up his own company Pym Tech, takes on a protégé named Darren Cross, and devotes his life and company to new scientific research. A problem arises when Cross rediscovers Pym’s old research and sets out to try and recreate the technology for a new project called Yellow Jacket. Pym wants to prevent this because not only does he believe his technology is dangerous, but he also feels that Cross is unstable. But the long retired and now old Pym needs help in ensuring the research is destroyed. That help comes in the form of Scott Lang (Paul Rudd). A former electrical engineer turned ex-con after he broke into a supposedly unbeatable security system of his former employers VistaCorp. Scott is brought in to help Hank and his daughter Hope Van Dyne to end the schemes of Darren Cross, save the city, and help Scott find redemption in the eyes of society and the eyes of his own daughter Cassie.

All in all the film is really good. It hits the high notes you expect from a Marvel movie. You get a lot of big comic book action, some well timed comedic beats, some very likeable characters, and overall a lot of fun. And Marvel continues its current trend of inserting its Marvel characters into what are essentially comic book takes on genre films. Where Captain America: Winter Soldier was very much a 70’s political thriller and Guardian of the Galaxy was a space opera, Ant-Man is a heist movie. You have the MacGuffin that they want to steal, they assemble a crew, they prep for the heist, have a few montages, and then in the final act they pull off the job. Think Ocean’s Eleven or The Italian Job in spandex. In addition, the scenes where Scott shrinks down to ant size are done really well. They effectively showed how something so mundane as a tub filling up with water could be catastrophic for someone the size of a bug. Making big action out of very small settings. Sometimes for comedic effect like you saw in the trailer. And the way the film was able to handle the action scenes to easily transition between the shrunken and full sized Scott Lang, even to the point of Scott shrinking and growing in the course of a single fight was superb. I admit I was very surprised that the director for this film had only previously worked on movies like Bring it On, The Break-Up, Down with Love, and Yes Man. Kind of crazy he went from those movies to this. Give the man props though; he really stepped up his game.

As for the actors, Paul Rudd was a fantastic casting choice for Scott Lang. Not only do I buy Paul Rudd as a super smart tech guy, but also as a thief. Now sure he only really did that one job, but Paul does portray himself well as a guy who learned a few things from the pen. And during the scene where he does steal the Ant-Man suit, I totally buy that he has done this before. But there is a lot more to the Scott Lang character. Just like in the comics, Lang was a thief with a good heart. In the comics he stole the Ant-Man suit so he can steal money save his his daughter from a life threatening heart condition. They keep to that tradition here in the film. Only instead Scott turned to burglary to return a butt load of ill gotten cash from VistaCorp back to their customers (whom they have been overcharging). If only Scott could do that for me and Time Warner Cable. Why he did not go to a trade commission or something of the like after he was fired for whistle blowing, I have no idea. But I admit becoming a thief and driving the CEO’s car into a pool does sound like a lot more fun. So I rolled with it. Besides, no one wants to see a movie about trade regulations and corporate fines. I want to see s**t get stolen and blown up! Scott also does come off as a really likeable guy. He has great chemistry with his daughter Cassie, Hank, Hope, and with his former cellmate Luis. Thus keeping true to the character trait of Lang being a good person, but driven to do bad for the right reasons.

Hank Pym on the other hand was given a complete character overhaul from the comics. And boy was it for the better. For the film Pym does remain a scientist first, and a reluctant superhero second like in the comics. He was also married to Janet Van Dyne and they were Ant-Man and The Wasp. Unlike in the comics, Janet dies (supposedly) in an operation involving a Russian ICBM. The details I will leave for when you watch the movie, but it explains why Pym left SHIELD and further delves into his complicated relationship with his daughter Hope. All of which is a very touching scene, setting up Pym as an old worn down scientist / old school superhero that has significant emotional baggage. But even with his flaws, you like him because you understand his pain. The charisma of Michael Douglas does help a lot though. And I think these changes were the best route Marvel could have made for Hank Pym. In the comics he is far more complicated (or convoluted) and WAY more despicable. He was a founding Avenger (which is cool),was married Janet Van Dyne (as is standard), and he had several other super hero code names. Like the time he used his Pym particles to grow and became Giant-Man. But he also went crazy, became Yellow Jacket, had a brief stint as a villain, started beating his wife, and eventually got divorced. Top it off in the comics not only did Hank Pym create Ultron, he eventually BECAME Ultron. What a lovely guy right? I think you can see why Marvel Studios opted for Lang over Pym as the main lead, since Pym has WAY too much baggage. Also explains why they wrote out a lot of the more distasteful details of Hank’s past, which is recommended when you are making your family friendly movie.

The supporting cast is great as well. Evangeline Lilly was great as Hope Van Dyne, Michael Pena was hilarious as Luis, and the use of TI and David Dastmalchian were very good as part of Lang’s crew. Judy Greer played Scott’s ex-wife very well and her new San Francisco cop fiancé Paxton started out as the douche you hate, but end up liking in the end. After you learn he is not a complete d**k-hole. Plus Haley Atwell’s return and the addition of Anthony Mackie as Falcon really helped cement this movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was awesome to see the Avengers and SHIELD bleed into this movie resulting in that awesome 80’s flashback and an awesome fight scene at the new Avenger’s compound. And keep your eyes peeled as Stan Lee continues to pad his Marvel Cameo list. Overall the cast was great. But this movie does fall to a typical Marvel movie problem, a lackluster villain. Don’t get me wrong I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but really good villains are hard to find. Loki is easily the best of them, Robert Redford was awesome as Alexander Pierce, James Spader was great as Ultron, and I am REALLY looking forward to Josh Brolin as Thanos. But we have yet another forgettable corporate bad guy with Darren Cross. At least when he is outside of the suit. Inside the suit in the fight scenes he was awesome, but aside from the last 20 or so minutes of the movie he is pretty generic. And I do not think that this weakness is due to Marvel Studios or even the casting, but from the source material. Comics are riddled with super villains from the corporate landscape. I mean you have the Roxxon Oil Company, LexCorp, OsCorp, and plenty other companies from Iron Man alone. Problem is there is really not much you can do to make yourself standout as a unique and credible villain in a role like that. Even when you are Jeff Bridges or Guy Pearce, your roles just are not that memorable. At least Ben Kingsley was memorable as the pseudo Mandarin, but that was hardly a faithful adaptation of the character. But at least Darren Cross is more memorable then Malekith from Thor: The Dark World. Not exactly high praise, but it is true. I mean come on, you remember the Loki scenes more than the Malekith scenes in that movie.

Overall the film was very good. It was better than I was expecting, and did make for a very good time at the theater. I wish they would have ironed out a few writing issues that I felt were not that well spelled out and a better villain for the beginning of the movie, but it was still very good. A few hiccups here and there, but this film is the an overachiever of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Like with Guardians of the Galaxy, it came in with low expectations, but delivered well beyond what I was expecting. Though Guardians is by far the better film. I would recommend seeing it in the theater if you are into these kinds of movies. Also do stay after for the end credit teasers. There are two of them. One involves what involves one of the characters of this film, but the last one at the very end of the credits builds up to Captain America: Civil War.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

really interested in Ant-Man now thanks Gunslinger !

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

Oh no, for once you beat me to the punch in regards to reviewing a Marvel movie.

Nice looking review though. I didn't go in-depth with it, more skimmed over so as not to spoil anything, but will definitely come back and give it a proper read after I've managed to see it.

__________________

Went and saw it today too Slinger. I liked it less then you but not by a lot and I think overall you are probably a much bigger fan of the Marvel universe anyway. I think you underplayed the script problems a bit. I loved the action though, very well done. Great review Slinger.

__________________
Letterboxd

Well said.
Me neither. I say with "Mad Max: Fury Road": "You say it best, when you say nothing at all..."
That's right.
Definitely.

Cap your response was huge, so now I will do a proper response not that I have time.

Yeah it is bittersweet. Kurosawa is over, but now I get to watch more films by Jean Pierre Melville, and I just added a crap ton of Noir into my Hulu queue. So where one door closes another opens.

Hated Terminator: Genisys... SO damn much!

Lucky me I have plenty of independent cinemas near me beyond the major chains.

Try it at least once. It is worth it.

I actually dug the hell out of the slow mo.

I love this response to Mad Max: Fury Road! It just makes it more certain that it will remain my favorite film of the year!

Depending on how much influence Edgar Wright had on the development and writing of the film, whether I like it or not will be decided. I'll see it this weekend. Great review as always buddy.

Wright wrote enough that he still gets a story and writing credit. But Rudd and one other came in to add to the script as well. There are a few bits that feel like Wright did it though.

Another excellent review, Gunslinger. I've been unsure about Ant-Man ever since I first heard about it. I know all superhero movies are ridiculous to some extent, but the idea of a man who shrinks himself and runs around with ants just sounds a lot sillier than Captain America or Iron Man and most other superheroes. (Plus it reminds me way too much of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.) With Edgar Wright's name initially being attached to the project and Paul Rudd cast as the lead, I thought Ant-Man might break from the typical Marvel formula and become a straight-up comedy with lots of camp. That was wishful thinking, obviously. I just question how seriously I'll be able to buy into the drama and action. I've still yet to watch Guardians of the Galaxy because I had similar misgivings about a talking raccoon and a talking tree, but judging from everything I've heard, Guardians is lighthearted and fun. Ant-Man looks like it plays everything with a straight face. I'm sure there's still plenty of humor, much like in The Avengers movies, but it sounds to me like it would've been better served as a comedy with action than an action with comedy.

Of course, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe it will prove me wrong. I'll probably wait to rent it instead of making a trip to the theater.

I say watch Guardians of the Galaxy first. That is a lot of fun.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut

As we continue to enter the new realm of media known as streaming, I have heard many people say that theaters will eventually disappear. From high priced concessions, to the struggles of getting a family to the theater, to ticket prices; it is hard for me to rebuke their reasoning. But it is sad too, since there are some movies that you need to see on the big screen. Most are certain summer blockbusters which require the biggest screen possible to get the full effect. The Avengers, Pacific Rim, and The Dark Knight are just so much better when you see them on the big screen. Certain epic style movies need to be viewed on the big screen. Ben-Hur and Gravity are great films in their own right, but there is a world of difference watching the chariot race or the space debris collisions on the big screen as opposed to just a large flat screen TV. And sometimes certain films are enhanced, because the bigger screen simply enhances the art. Film masterpieces like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Taxi Driver, and The Godfather are brought to new peaks when the screen is big, the room is completely dark, and you are listening via a theater sound system. Blade Runner is another example of such a masterpiece. And is another film I was fortunate enough to see on the big screen.

Blade Runner takes place in Los Angeles in the year 2019. The Tyrell Corporation has invented beings called replicants; artificial humans used for interstellar labor and space colony details. They were made to be without emotion. But it was found that after a few years, replicants could be able to develop their own emotions. To counter this issue, they were then programmed to have a 4 year life span and they are banned from Earth. But that did not stop replicants from developing emotions and some would go rogue and escape to Earth. New police units were made to hunt down these rogue beings. These new policemen were called blade runners. And their job was “retire” replicants that escaped to Earth. Rick Deckard is a retired blade runner forced back into the game by his old boss. He is charged with retiring four “skin jobs” who have come to Earth. They are led by a highly advanced Nexus 6 replicant named Roy Batty. Batty and his company seek out the president of the Tyrell Corporation that made them, in order to solve the issue of their short life spans. And Roy is willing to do anything, and kill anyone in order to reach his goal. Deckard now hunts the four replicants with the occasional help of a disabled cop named Gaff and a young mysterious woman named Rachael. Whose role in this case is revealed later in the film.

I LOVE this film! It combines a lot of what I love in movies. You have a run down and sleazy urban setting, lots of shadows and neon lights, religious imagery and themes, a fantastic score, beautiful imagery and cinematography, more than a few Noir tropes, and to top it off it is a sci-fi film with Harrison Ford; one of my all time favorite actors. But this film is one that I admittedly had a very rocky start to. So I want to discuss my evolution with the film. Blade Runner is one of my brother’s favorite movies of all time; right up there with Dark City and Secretary. He raved about it and even had the Collector’s DVD set that had a brief case, five discs, a figure of the flying police car, a figure of the origami unicorn at the end of the film, and tons of extra literature. So he suggested I try it out. I tried watching the film twice before and did not like it either time. Then again I was watching the Theatrical Cut, so I was already setting myself up for failure.

Many years passed, and it was not until I came to our fair Movie Forums that I figured I would try again. So many MoFo’s here have Blade Runner in their top ten. Holden Pike, Guap, Swan, and Iroquois have it in their top ten; and Sci-Fi Slob, Lucas, and Sedai have stated that it is their favorite film ever. So I figured I would try again, only this time I would watch the Directors Cut. And it was a million times better. A lot of my favorite films do have voice over narrations in them. Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Terminator 2, The Wolf of Wall Street, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and a lot of Film Noir. But dammit does it SUCK in the Theatrical Cut of Blade Runner! Granted Harrison Ford was half-assing it (because he thought it was a stupid idea) but still the film is perfect without it. If you just allow the film to speak for itself, and tell the story visually then the film really becomes this beautiful piece of art. And since I really liked the Director’s Cut, I then wanted to see the Final Cut. This is the cut that Ridley Scott said is the true director’s cut. The one he as the director put his stamp of approval on. And when I first saw it on DVD about a year ago I thought it was brilliant. It added a few changes here, fixed some continuity errors there, and used a little CGI to add some more neon into certain shots. Don’t get me wrong, this is not like when George Lucas added CGI dewbacks and Han stepping over Jabba’s tail changes. All the practical effects remain the same. This was a director correcting the film that he lost control over in the early 80’s, instead of trying to add more CG flair to an already perfect film. And the film is enhanced by it; creating an even more enthralling visual experience.

But it did not stop there. When I moved back out to Texas, I got TV. I was no longer in the damn barracks, so I wanted a big flat screen for my apartment. So I opted for a HD TV and Blu Ray player set up. Now I bought the Taxi Driver Blu Ray before I even got the TV (just because); but when I first got my Blu Ray Player there were two films I felt I needed to buy on Blu Ray next. One was Apocalypse Now, and the other was Blade Runner. And yeah, Blade Runner in Blu Ray is amazing! The visuals are crisper, the colors are better, so much more definition to a film that was already a visual wonder.

Which brings us to July of 2015. As you know here in Dallas there are a lot of small independent theaters. And these theaters like to bring old movies back for special screenings. One such theater is The Magnolia in the Uptown neighborhood. A sort of hip/preppie/yuppie part of town. High rent, lots of bars, restaurants that are not chains, lots of Starbucks, and crap for parking. But as I discovered this little theater brings in an old or foreign film to be viewed every Tuesday night. And they have a long list of these movies on their website. And when I saw one of those films was Blade Runner, I jumped at the chance to see it. Bought my ticket online on the spot and waited for the magical day to arrive. To sit in the back row and see the lights go down and watch the opening of the film on a giant screen was breath taking. To see the fire reflected in Batty’s eye was hypnotizing. The sunset lighting in the Tyrell Corporation offices was incredible. And the sci-fi version of LA’s neon slime was all the brighter on the big screen. And the Vangelis score reached new peaks when it is pouring out of the cinema sound system. That mix of synth and occasional saxophone jazz sound really added to the sci-fi and film noir mix this film created. But the best scene was at the end when Roy Batty delivers his famous “Tears in the Rain” speech. I almost cried; ending in one of the best theatrical experiences ever. Not as good as Taxi Driver mind you, but damn close.

You do not need to see this film on the big screen. You DESERVE to see this on the big screen! It enhances a film that is already a masterpiece to something otherworldly. I will be regularly checking out The Magnolia’s website in the future for what films they bring in next. I already have my ticket for Blue Velvet. Now the next film I REALLY want to see on the big screen is Apocalypse Now. And I have three theaters that could help me in that department. Hopefully I do not have to wait too long.

Man, you make me so jealous every time you post about all your amazing experiences seeing these iconic films on the big screen. I've only seen Blade Runner once (I think it was the Director's Cut, not the Final Cut). Although I liked it quite a bit, I didn't love it as much I feel like I'm supposed to love it. I've heard a lot of people admit to being lukewarm on Blade Runner at first until it grew on them and became one of their favorites. Maybe the same thing will happen to me.

I love how often you watch Blade Runner, Guns! Shows you really love it.

Oh yeah I do. And yeah Cap, Blade Runner did grow on me, but I feel it would have been a quicker favorite if I saw the Directors or Final Cut first.

movie theaters ARE mandatory for quite a few epic movies and like when cable tv came out and it was believed theaters would close, the theaters will continue to stay open.

As always, an epic review for an epic movie!!

Lawrence of Arabia

Hello MoFos! It is time again for another edition with At the Theater with The Gunslinger45. I have not done a review recently because the summer movie season is coming to an end. Mad Max and the MCU movies have come and gone, and I look now to the horizon of the award movie season and the return of Star Wars. In the meantime, September is proving to be a rich month for me when it comes to classic cinema being rereleased in the theaters. I have already preordered several tickets for this month, and I got to see the first of which this weekend. Now this is a film I have already seen. Though I admit my first viewing was rather lacking. The last time I saw this film I gave it an… average rating. Now many factors went into that rating. I watched this a few years ago when I was still stationed at Fort Hood with the Army. I saw it on a Friday evening after one of those weeks where not even a Red Bull could keep me awake. So I was nodding in and out during certain scenes. But the biggest issue with my viewing experience came from the fact I was watching in on my 12.5” by 7” screen laptop. Needless to say, this is far too small a screen to view a film such as this on. So I gave the film a 2.5 out of 5. A score I give to films I usually feel are mediocre. But a movie such as this does not get the praise it does by being mediocre. I also assign 2.5 ratings to films I feel deserve a rewatch, and this score is an interim rating until I can see it again. And I knew for me to get the best possible viewing experience I must watch the film on the big screen. Well the day finally came. You all have heard me prattle on about how much I enjoy the cinematic experience and how I feel it is necessary for certain films. I have spoken of how seeing films like Ben-Hur, Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey propelled films I have already loved higher up on my list of all time favorites, and how when I saw my favorite film Taxi Driver on the big screen it was a sublime and almost otherworldly experience. And walking into this film I was hoping that I would have a far more positive viewing experience on a screen measured in stories versus one measured in inches. And guess what? I most certainly did.

Lawrence of Arabia is a film based off the real life British officer TE Lawrence. Colonel Lawrence gained quite the notoriety during World War I as the man who united the tribes of Bedouin Arabs into a single Army. He led these Arab fighters to victory after victory against the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, eventually leading to their defeat and an Allied victory. The film is one part historical drama, but it is also a look at the man himself. While watching the film I could not help but see some similarities to another famous military officer, General George S. Patton; at least similarities in their portrayal in their respective films. Both men are renowned military minds; both are celebrated heroes in their respected wars; both are men of great ambition; of unique character; and both were very successful on the battle field. But they were certainly not carbon copies. Patton was feared by the Germans, because he was the best. And he was the best because he loved battle. George C. Scott’s famous speech in the beginning of Patton where he talks of “killing the Hun bastards and using their living guts to grease the treads of his tanks” shows that well enough. Patton was also very direct. He could outmaneuver anyone on the battlefield, even the Desert Fox Rommel. He was also a man who fought for his own ego and glory. Feeling it was his destiny to be the best soldier who ever lived. Patton knew what he was and wore it on his sleeve.

Lawrence is portrayed as a different sort. Lawrence in the film is far more conflicted. Lawrence is British Officer and a man of war. All be it a bit more eccentric then his compatriots, but still he is a fighting man. But during the final scene before the intermission when describing to his superior officer about the two men he killed, and the Turks killed in the taking of Aqaba, he confesses he enjoyed it. But Lawrence is far more conflicted about it. In fact he comes to loathe bloodshed. After this Lawrence even goes a different way. He tries to be far more merciful. He fights and kills yes, but also takes more prisoners. Even rising up to halt the firing of belt fed machine guns on a Turkish train. Key word being try. Lawrence was also much more a master of surprise. He travels through the Nefud Desert to take Aqaba (a task though to be impossible), and he does quick strikes against the Turkish railroad system in several ambush / sabotage missions. His is further conflicted in loyalty. Patton fought for glory, and so does Lawrence at first. Lawrence also fights for the Allies but also becomes conflicted when he tries to fight for Arab independence and trying to secure a free nation for them. Lawrence is a man caught between two worlds. Caught between English duty to King and Country, but also between the Arabs he has come to endear himself too. In fact he is constantly shown not quite fitting in to either world at one point. Too much an Arab for other English Officers, but still not an true Arab to the Bedouins since he is English. Making this not only a epic historical piece, but also a fantastic character study.

This film is blessed with a fantastic cast. Lawrence is brought to life by one of the greatest actors ever to live, Peter O' Toole. Whose piercing blue eyes were able to show Lawrence’s fear, his struggles, but also his confidence, and burning ambition. Supporting him is Omar Sharif as Ali, Alec Guinness as Prince Faisal, Anthony Quinn played Auda adu Tayi, and Jack Hawkins portrayed General Allenby. Many more great British actors are in the film as well, but these are the big name players. Each one gives a powerhouse performance. But what I really want to talk about is the cinematography and scenery. WOW! Being able to see this on the big screen where it belongs was amazing! So much was lost on my initial viewing due to the tiny scale of my laptop. But at the cinema these same scenes become legendary experiences. The scene where you watch the sun rise as Lawrence is first shown in the deserts of Arabia is breathtaking and iconic. Before the taking of Aqaba when they must cross the Nefud Desert is enthralling and still suspenseful even though I know the outcome. To feel the seats rumble beneath me during the raid at Aqaba and several other battle scenes is thrilling. And finally during one quiet moment when Lawrence is starring up at the Arab sky to see the many stars sparkle at the night sky is simply beautiful. And the way Lean was able to show such grand scale in far away shots, close ups, and even shots that mixed the two together was superb. These were scenes I had forgotten when I was watching them on my laptop. But at the cinema, these rich images are forever burned into my mind forever.

I was very fortunate to see this film on the big screen. I am glad I was patient enough to wait and see this movie in its proper format. Now I can truly say this is a cinematic masterpiece. There is no other way to describe it. And I can safely say THIS is my favorite English film. Sorry Odd Man Out.

Wow, that's some write-up right there, Guns!

Crazy how your rating and thoughts on the film jumped like that. But yes, the cinema screen must be the ultimate experience of all ultimate experiences.

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Quite jealous I am-great work Gunner!

Very good review Slinger. I saw Arabia for the first time last year and thought it was brilliant. I did watch it on my 60" plasma which while not being the cinema where I would like to see it, is still far better than a laptop. Just bought the Blu-ray so I am hoping to find time for another viewing soon. It really is one of the great epics.