Pete: you know way more about this than I do, but I saw “Che” at the Ziegfeld yesterday and it was shot with a new kind of digital camera called “The Red”. The picture quality was truly excellent. No pixelation that I could see, and I was sitting in the 8th row. Some scenes had such beautiful highly-saturated color that I really felt like I was watching 70mm. I thought the Star Wars prequels shot on digital often looked flat and washed-out, but this was something else altogether.
Another tactic the annoying kids pulled: whenever somebody shushed them they’d all shush back, in unison. They seemed very hard to get through to. No wonder that guy was so angry on the way out. He was screaming at them, that they disrespected the real Che and everybody who made the movie.
I almost said something to one of the ushers who are constantly checking the thermostats near the front of the Ziegfeld, but those kids seemed to be spread out evenly all around the theater, so I doubt she could’ve done anything about it. I’m with you, saps – this is a job for a matron with a flashlight.
Another unusual thing about “Che”: it was shot in two different aspect ratios, very wide 2.35:1 for the first part and regular widescreen 1.85:1 for the second. The second part was pretty much a downer all the way, so maybe the director felt the expansive full wide screen wasn’t appropriate for that part of the story.
Just got back from “Che”. Let’s get the bad stuff out of the way first: it was way too long, especially Part Two which was basically the same scene over and over again, until finally giving way to a very affecting finale. It could easily have been cut by an hour.
Now for the good: the film was filled with beautiful images. It looks like the most impressive digitally-shot movie yet (maybe they invented a new and better digital camera?) Benicio Del Toro was very good in the title role. The film had no on-screen credits, but everyone got a free program with all credits listed, just like “Apocalypse Now” at the Ziegfeld in 1979. And it was a real thrill just to see an “Intermission” title card again, after all these years. And to hear an overture and exit music.
They used the curtains, and there were no commercials or previews. In fact, I missed a few minutes of the overture because it started at 1 PM on the dot. There were some rowdy schoolkids in the crowd (quite a big crowd for a 1 PM show on a Thursday, by the way) who were talking out loud, laughing hysterically when people on the screen were getting shot, etc. There was almost a fistfight in the lobby when an angry patron confronted them about it on the way out.
Thanks! and the same to you. Right now I’m in full year-end-Oscar-hopeful-movie-seeing mode. Tonight is “The Wrestler” if it’s not sold out (Sunshine Cinemas). And tomorrow, “Che”, all 4 ½ hours of it. Al posted a good review of it on the Ziegfeld page.
You said it, movie534. One bad thing: there were only about 4 people in the theater besides me. That could be blamed on it being a snowy night, however. Also, the movie has been in release since October.
From now on, I’m going to make an effort to patronize this theater more often.
I saw “Rachel Getting Married” (excellent movie, by the way) here last night. Very clean theater, very friendly staff, and they were playing Alex North’s music from “Spartacus” before the movie began. That’s enough right there for me to give it the highest recommendation. Another plus: they’re keeping the Beekman name alive.
As I walked into the auditorium, I remembered that I’d seen “Norma Rae” here in 1979, when it was still Loew’s New York One and Two. I think that was the premiere attraction for this theater.
I always liked Superman IV. At least it was fun to watch. It may not have been as good as I and II but it was a vast improvement over III, which was no fun at all.
When I saw David Lynch’s “The Straight Story”, a 2.35:1 widescreen film, at the Clairidge in 1999, the extreme left side of the image was off the screen and projected on to the theater wall. What a comedown from the Cinerama days. I can still remember the way certain shots from “How the West Was Won” looked on that huge curved screen, even after 45 years.
Bob, that was an excellent list. Even Michael, the Listmaster around here, would agree.
I’ve only been in one of these Chicago theaters, the State-Lake (“Return of the Jedi” in 1983, a 70mm blowup), but now you’ve got me wondering what “Cleopatra” looked like in there.
My brother and I saw “Superman” at the Loew’s Astor Plaza on Saturday of its opening weekend. I remember the audience roaring with laughter when Lois interviewed Superman, and later when she said, “That’s Clark, Nice”. I was so impressed by John Williams' score that I immediately went across the street after the movie to the nearest music store, only to be told the record hadn’t been released yet. These days, most soundtracks come out well before the movies' opening day.
Thanks Tim. The last time I was at the Clairidge, the photos were taken down from the lobby walls. Don’t know if that was permanent or not. I couldn’t figure out why they’d want to do such a thing – having once been a Cinerama theater should be a source of great pride. Now I’m really glad I took those pictures of them.
The one good thing I can say about the Clairidge: they always show the low-budget independents and limited-release studio films you can’t usually see outside of Manhattan. But everytime I go there I can’t help feeling sad about the building itself. I still remember how awesome it was in 1963 when I saw “How the West Was Won” there in Cinerama.
They had framed photos of the old Cinerama days in the lobby (which I took pictures of a couple of years ago, and had my camera confiscated for the evening because of it – you can see the pictures on the Clairidge page at 1/23/07 –/theaters/6348/). Now I believe even those photos have been taken down, and with them the last vestiges of the Clairidge’s glorious past.
No spoilers, just major disappointment. How do we get Hollywood to call off the planned remake of “Forbidden Planet”? Based on the sci-fi remake track record, they should just not bother.
I just saw the new version of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” in the IMAX theater. The Robert Wise original is one of my all-time favorites, but I did a pretty good job of trying to forget it while watching the new one so I could judge it on its own merits. The only problem: it didn’t have any merits. What was pure, simple, and no-nonsense in 1951 has become pretty much ridiculous, and it kept getting sillier as it went along.
If ever there were textbook examples of why a good script is more important than good special effects in a sci-fi movie, they’re right here: 1951 vs. 2008. I think this movie would’ve made Robert Wise angry, and by all accounts he never got angry.
Speaking of money: To anyone who IS considering seeing “Che”: the one-week engagement now at the Ziegfeld is the full 4 hour 18 minute film with a 30-minute intermission. Early next year it will be released as two separate movies with two separate admissions. If you want to save some money, see it at the Ziegfeld before Thursday!
Vito: I’d already paid for my ticket even before I read your review, but I feel compelled to see it no matter what because it is “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, just like I ran off to see remakes of “The Thing”, “Village of the Damned”, “Planet of the Apes”, “The Time Machine”, “War of the Worlds”, etc. The 1978 “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” was the only one that even came close to being as good as the original.
I did see “Frost/Nixon” and agree with you 100%. Frank Langella is amazing.
I’m still debating whether or not to see “Che”. I’m a little leery about spending almost 5 straight hours at the Ziegfeld watching something that isn’t “Lawrence of Arabia”.
Can anyone confirm whether “Che” was shown on a Sony 4K projector? Thanks.
“Che” was shown digitally. I’ll check over on the Ziegfeld page – maybe somebody has mentioned the 4K projector.
Pete: you know way more about this than I do, but I saw “Che” at the Ziegfeld yesterday and it was shot with a new kind of digital camera called “The Red”. The picture quality was truly excellent. No pixelation that I could see, and I was sitting in the 8th row. Some scenes had such beautiful highly-saturated color that I really felt like I was watching 70mm. I thought the Star Wars prequels shot on digital often looked flat and washed-out, but this was something else altogether.
Another tactic the annoying kids pulled: whenever somebody shushed them they’d all shush back, in unison. They seemed very hard to get through to. No wonder that guy was so angry on the way out. He was screaming at them, that they disrespected the real Che and everybody who made the movie.
I almost said something to one of the ushers who are constantly checking the thermostats near the front of the Ziegfeld, but those kids seemed to be spread out evenly all around the theater, so I doubt she could’ve done anything about it. I’m with you, saps – this is a job for a matron with a flashlight.
Another unusual thing about “Che”: it was shot in two different aspect ratios, very wide 2.35:1 for the first part and regular widescreen 1.85:1 for the second. The second part was pretty much a downer all the way, so maybe the director felt the expansive full wide screen wasn’t appropriate for that part of the story.
Just got back from “Che”. Let’s get the bad stuff out of the way first: it was way too long, especially Part Two which was basically the same scene over and over again, until finally giving way to a very affecting finale. It could easily have been cut by an hour.
Now for the good: the film was filled with beautiful images. It looks like the most impressive digitally-shot movie yet (maybe they invented a new and better digital camera?) Benicio Del Toro was very good in the title role. The film had no on-screen credits, but everyone got a free program with all credits listed, just like “Apocalypse Now” at the Ziegfeld in 1979. And it was a real thrill just to see an “Intermission” title card again, after all these years. And to hear an overture and exit music.
They used the curtains, and there were no commercials or previews. In fact, I missed a few minutes of the overture because it started at 1 PM on the dot. There were some rowdy schoolkids in the crowd (quite a big crowd for a 1 PM show on a Thursday, by the way) who were talking out loud, laughing hysterically when people on the screen were getting shot, etc. There was almost a fistfight in the lobby when an angry patron confronted them about it on the way out.
There’s a small ad in today’s NY Times: “Beekman Theatre”.
Thanks! and the same to you. Right now I’m in full year-end-Oscar-hopeful-movie-seeing mode. Tonight is “The Wrestler” if it’s not sold out (Sunshine Cinemas). And tomorrow, “Che”, all 4 ½ hours of it. Al posted a good review of it on the Ziegfeld page.
You said it, movie534. One bad thing: there were only about 4 people in the theater besides me. That could be blamed on it being a snowy night, however. Also, the movie has been in release since October.
From now on, I’m going to make an effort to patronize this theater more often.
I saw “Rachel Getting Married” (excellent movie, by the way) here last night. Very clean theater, very friendly staff, and they were playing Alex North’s music from “Spartacus” before the movie began. That’s enough right there for me to give it the highest recommendation. Another plus: they’re keeping the Beekman name alive.
As I walked into the auditorium, I remembered that I’d seen “Norma Rae” here in 1979, when it was still Loew’s New York One and Two. I think that was the premiere attraction for this theater.
And I agree that the new “Superman Returns” was a super dud. All that talent, and that’s all they could come up with?
I always liked Superman IV. At least it was fun to watch. It may not have been as good as I and II but it was a vast improvement over III, which was no fun at all.
When I saw David Lynch’s “The Straight Story”, a 2.35:1 widescreen film, at the Clairidge in 1999, the extreme left side of the image was off the screen and projected on to the theater wall. What a comedown from the Cinerama days. I can still remember the way certain shots from “How the West Was Won” looked on that huge curved screen, even after 45 years.
Bob, that was an excellent list. Even Michael, the Listmaster around here, would agree.
I’ve only been in one of these Chicago theaters, the State-Lake (“Return of the Jedi” in 1983, a 70mm blowup), but now you’ve got me wondering what “Cleopatra” looked like in there.
My brother and I saw “Superman” at the Loew’s Astor Plaza on Saturday of its opening weekend. I remember the audience roaring with laughter when Lois interviewed Superman, and later when she said, “That’s Clark, Nice”. I was so impressed by John Williams' score that I immediately went across the street after the movie to the nearest music store, only to be told the record hadn’t been released yet. These days, most soundtracks come out well before the movies' opening day.
Thanks Tim. The last time I was at the Clairidge, the photos were taken down from the lobby walls. Don’t know if that was permanent or not. I couldn’t figure out why they’d want to do such a thing – having once been a Cinerama theater should be a source of great pride. Now I’m really glad I took those pictures of them.
One good thing about the remakes: they make you appreciate the quality of the originals more than you ever thought possible.
I hear they’re also remaking “The Birds”. There should be an unwritten law in Hollywood: Don’t Remake Hitchcock.
The one good thing I can say about the Clairidge: they always show the low-budget independents and limited-release studio films you can’t usually see outside of Manhattan. But everytime I go there I can’t help feeling sad about the building itself. I still remember how awesome it was in 1963 when I saw “How the West Was Won” there in Cinerama.
They had framed photos of the old Cinerama days in the lobby (which I took pictures of a couple of years ago, and had my camera confiscated for the evening because of it – you can see the pictures on the Clairidge page at 1/23/07 –/theaters/6348/). Now I believe even those photos have been taken down, and with them the last vestiges of the Clairidge’s glorious past.
No spoilers, just major disappointment. How do we get Hollywood to call off the planned remake of “Forbidden Planet”? Based on the sci-fi remake track record, they should just not bother.
Vito, I just got back. You were right.
More details here:
/theaters/7222/
I just saw the new version of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” in the IMAX theater. The Robert Wise original is one of my all-time favorites, but I did a pretty good job of trying to forget it while watching the new one so I could judge it on its own merits. The only problem: it didn’t have any merits. What was pure, simple, and no-nonsense in 1951 has become pretty much ridiculous, and it kept getting sillier as it went along.
If ever there were textbook examples of why a good script is more important than good special effects in a sci-fi movie, they’re right here: 1951 vs. 2008. I think this movie would’ve made Robert Wise angry, and by all accounts he never got angry.
They really should have called it something else.
Speaking of money: To anyone who IS considering seeing “Che”: the one-week engagement now at the Ziegfeld is the full 4 hour 18 minute film with a 30-minute intermission. Early next year it will be released as two separate movies with two separate admissions. If you want to save some money, see it at the Ziegfeld before Thursday!
I just don’t want to fall asleep on it. At my age, you know … :) The reviews have not been great either.
Vito: I’d already paid for my ticket even before I read your review, but I feel compelled to see it no matter what because it is “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, just like I ran off to see remakes of “The Thing”, “Village of the Damned”, “Planet of the Apes”, “The Time Machine”, “War of the Worlds”, etc. The 1978 “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” was the only one that even came close to being as good as the original.
I did see “Frost/Nixon” and agree with you 100%. Frank Langella is amazing.
I’m still debating whether or not to see “Che”. I’m a little leery about spending almost 5 straight hours at the Ziegfeld watching something that isn’t “Lawrence of Arabia”.