It is a New York area exclusive at the Ziegfeld till July 1st, and that strategy worked well for “Dreamgirls” at $25. And everyone gets a free gift (?).
I can remember the Criterion still keeping its classy stature during the “Alien” engagement in 1979. I guess the bad times started not too long after that.
I’d say “Star Trek” and “The Untouchables” (both from the ‘70s and '80s) are the only TV show-to-movie adaptations that did work. The rest of them didn’t even come close.
Thanks, REndres. I realized after I posted the question that it might be breaking a code of ethics for a projectionist to comment on how good or bad a movie is before it’s released to the public.
Pete: You were right about the Variety review – not too good. But it sounds as if it’s not really finished yet. I guess I’ll go see it when it comes out and take my chances.
The films that came before it which we now consider sci-fi classics could never get beyond ½ (“The Time Machine”, “The Thing”, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”) or (“The Day the Earth Stood Still”, “The War of the Worlds”, “Journey to the Center of the Earth”). “Forbidden Planet” got **.
I could be all wrong here: “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” may have gotten ****. Gotta check up on that at the New York Public Library.
Wanda Hale must’ve been with the paper for more than 30 years – I can recall reading her reviews up until the late 1960s.
In the Movie Time Table (on the review page), you can see that the last showing of “Oz” at the Capitol started at 1 AM. Wow. No Judy and Mickey stage show for those patrons, though.
Slightly off topic but REndres, is “Che” any good? Hearing about a 4-hour movie brought me back to the days of “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Cleopatra” for a minute there.
Lots of different opinions about the movie and the screening, but all I can say is … Wow! Movies at Radio City again! It felt good to hear about that show.
It goes without saying, but I wish they did it more often and opened it up to the general public.
Lots of information (some of it inaccurate – we never do get to see Emerald City from the stratosphere) in this New York Daily News ad for “The Wizard of Oz”:
Thanks Al. I admit my expectations were high but only because I expected it to be as good as any of the other three, with the same director, producer and actors on board. The same thing happened with the Star Wars prequels, which were cold and distant compared to the three originals. It seems to be an ongoing problem with Lucasfilm productions.
Sorry, Al, but I was just giving my honest opinion of the movie. Believe me, I wanted to like it as much as you did. And for the record, I was 26 years old when “Raiders of the Lost Ark” first came out so the Indy movies were not childhood memories.
When looking back on what I didn’t like about it, there are several reasons: the weak story, the general tiredness of the whole affair as if the only reason the movie was made was to rake in the dough – but I keep going back to the overuse of CGI. Filmmakers can now put anything they can imagine on the screen with very little effort, but it’s ruining the movies. At least it’s ruining the sequels to older movies that were made without CGI. I’m just old-fashioned, I guess.
Pete – maybe the score is better on CD, but in the movie it makes hardly any impression at all. I came out of the theater whistling the music from “Temple of Doom”.
Some good things – they used the curtains for the 10 AM show, the 35mm print was excellent as Gary said, and so was the sound. The Ziegfeld is still the best place to see it.
Glad you liked it, Gary, but I was left disappointed. Maybe I shouldn’t have re-watched the other 3 over the last few days, but the same sense of fun and excitement just wasn’t there in the new one. I blame all that CGI – seeing the digital Shia LaBoeuf or whatever that was in the jeep scene really turned me off the whole movie. Compare that to the under-the-truck stunt in “Raiders”, which a real human being actually did. I sound like a party pooper, but that’s what the movie seemed like to me. A couple of good scenes here and there, but overall not so good.
Real 1950’s sci-fi B pictures like “The Brain From Planet Arous” and “Teenagers From Outer Space” were much more enjoyable. I thought “Crystal Skull” was going to re-create the feel of those old movies, but it just left me wanting to see the old ones again and forget all about “Skull”. People were afraid it was going to be like “The Phantom Menace”, but that was actually a much better experience in every way. Even the music for “Skull” was bland – I’m surprised at John Williams.
Sorry to be so negative. I’d be interested to hear other opinions on it.
The concept of robot-controlled air conditioning just sounds so cool, ‘50’s style. I hope the new Indiana Jones movie, which takes place in 1957, has some of that same kind of '50’s feel.
It is a New York area exclusive at the Ziegfeld till July 1st, and that strategy worked well for “Dreamgirls” at $25. And everyone gets a free gift (?).
This was in today’s New York Times:
View link
I can remember the Criterion still keeping its classy stature during the “Alien” engagement in 1979. I guess the bad times started not too long after that.
I’d say “Star Trek” and “The Untouchables” (both from the ‘70s and '80s) are the only TV show-to-movie adaptations that did work. The rest of them didn’t even come close.
Thanks for posting that ad, Warren. I just watched the movie last night. What a beautiful film! If only I could have seen it at the Hall …
Thanks, REndres. I realized after I posted the question that it might be breaking a code of ethics for a projectionist to comment on how good or bad a movie is before it’s released to the public.
Pete: You were right about the Variety review – not too good. But it sounds as if it’s not really finished yet. I guess I’ll go see it when it comes out and take my chances.
As far as I know, Wanda was also the first Daily News critic to give 4 stars to a science fiction film, “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (1962):
View link
The films that came before it which we now consider sci-fi classics could never get beyond ½ (“The Time Machine”, “The Thing”, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”) or (“The Day the Earth Stood Still”, “The War of the Worlds”, “Journey to the Center of the Earth”). “Forbidden Planet” got **.
I could be all wrong here: “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” may have gotten ****. Gotta check up on that at the New York Public Library.
I always had a special respect for Wanda Hale because she was one of the few New York daily critics who appreciated “2001”.
You’re very welcome, Joe.
Wanda Hale must’ve been with the paper for more than 30 years – I can recall reading her reviews up until the late 1960s.
In the Movie Time Table (on the review page), you can see that the last showing of “Oz” at the Capitol started at 1 AM. Wow. No Judy and Mickey stage show for those patrons, though.
Slightly off topic but REndres, is “Che” any good? Hearing about a 4-hour movie brought me back to the days of “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Cleopatra” for a minute there.
Lots of different opinions about the movie and the screening, but all I can say is … Wow! Movies at Radio City again! It felt good to hear about that show.
It goes without saying, but I wish they did it more often and opened it up to the general public.
Not one, but two 4-star reviews for the same picture on the same page, 12/20/1939. Has this ever happened before or since?
View link
Not one, but two 4-star reviews for the same picture on the same page, 12/20/1939. Has this ever happened before or since?
View link
4-star Daily News review of “The Wizard of Oz”, 8/18/1939:
View link
Rave review of “King Kong” in the NY Daily News, 3/3/33. I’d say someone left a star out of this accidentally:
View link
This image is bigger:
View link
Lots of information (some of it inaccurate – we never do get to see Emerald City from the stratosphere) in this New York Daily News ad for “The Wizard of Oz”:
View link
I’m hoping “Mamma Mia” will be an exclusive run at the Ziegfeld only, like “Chicago” and “Dreamgirls” before it. For a week or two anyway.
Thanks Al. I admit my expectations were high but only because I expected it to be as good as any of the other three, with the same director, producer and actors on board. The same thing happened with the Star Wars prequels, which were cold and distant compared to the three originals. It seems to be an ongoing problem with Lucasfilm productions.
Sorry, Al, but I was just giving my honest opinion of the movie. Believe me, I wanted to like it as much as you did. And for the record, I was 26 years old when “Raiders of the Lost Ark” first came out so the Indy movies were not childhood memories.
When looking back on what I didn’t like about it, there are several reasons: the weak story, the general tiredness of the whole affair as if the only reason the movie was made was to rake in the dough – but I keep going back to the overuse of CGI. Filmmakers can now put anything they can imagine on the screen with very little effort, but it’s ruining the movies. At least it’s ruining the sequels to older movies that were made without CGI. I’m just old-fashioned, I guess.
Pete – maybe the score is better on CD, but in the movie it makes hardly any impression at all. I came out of the theater whistling the music from “Temple of Doom”.
Some good things – they used the curtains for the 10 AM show, the 35mm print was excellent as Gary said, and so was the sound. The Ziegfeld is still the best place to see it.
Glad you liked it, Gary, but I was left disappointed. Maybe I shouldn’t have re-watched the other 3 over the last few days, but the same sense of fun and excitement just wasn’t there in the new one. I blame all that CGI – seeing the digital Shia LaBoeuf or whatever that was in the jeep scene really turned me off the whole movie. Compare that to the under-the-truck stunt in “Raiders”, which a real human being actually did. I sound like a party pooper, but that’s what the movie seemed like to me. A couple of good scenes here and there, but overall not so good.
Real 1950’s sci-fi B pictures like “The Brain From Planet Arous” and “Teenagers From Outer Space” were much more enjoyable. I thought “Crystal Skull” was going to re-create the feel of those old movies, but it just left me wanting to see the old ones again and forget all about “Skull”. People were afraid it was going to be like “The Phantom Menace”, but that was actually a much better experience in every way. Even the music for “Skull” was bland – I’m surprised at John Williams.
Sorry to be so negative. I’d be interested to hear other opinions on it.
Or ROBBY, from “Forbidden Planet”. As far as I’m concerned, he’s tied with Gort (“The Day the Earth Stood Still”) for Best Movie Robot.
The concept of robot-controlled air conditioning just sounds so cool, ‘50’s style. I hope the new Indiana Jones movie, which takes place in 1957, has some of that same kind of '50’s feel.