Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico

Nick Medrano · September 12th, 2003, 03:31 PM

Just saw OATIM...wow. Looks like film..heck, it is film!

Anyways the movie....eeehhhhhh......story is still king.

Michael Wisniewski · September 12th, 2003, 05:43 PM

So Nick is that a thumbs up or thumbs down? Worth seeing the movie in a theatre or wait for DVD?

Nick Medrano · September 12th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Unfortunately, I thought this movie was terrible. But, many critics loved it, including Ebert. So, judge it for youself. I say, see it in the theater just so you can see how the video looks compared to film. Of course, they still transfered the video to film....

Brian Huey · September 12th, 2003, 08:00 PM

I agree that the story definitely lacks in places but with was an entertaining and fun movie, pretty much what I was expecting. I recommend going to see it.

Course it probably has nothing on Bubba Ho-Tep which is showing here in Seattle next week.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/bubba_ho-tep/

Cheers,
Huey

Michael Wisniewski · September 12th, 2003, 09:19 PM

<<<-- just so you can see how the video looks compared to film. Of course, they still transfered the video to film.... -->>>

Yes I am curious to see what Robert Rodriquez did this time around. During the DVD commentary for Spy Kids 2, he lamented that he was dissapointed with the "film" version and wanted people to see the DVD version because it showed what he "really" shot.

Rob Belics · September 13th, 2003, 09:40 AM

I didn't see it but my son told me that during the action scenes there was something going on that made him think 'bad video'. I read on another forum that the second half had a definite video look to it.

Richard Alvarez · September 13th, 2003, 11:10 AM

Only slightly off-topic, but as long as the topic is "FIlm is dead". -

Go see "Open Range" to see how beautiful film can truly be. It's an old style western, in pacing, theme and cinematography. Long lingering shots on scenic splendour... and color so rich and deep you could feel the breeze coming off the screen.

Ryan Martino · September 14th, 2003, 10:18 PM

hi all -

just saw this film tonight. i was a huge fan of desperado even before i knew rodriquez's story at all. so now that i have the movie making bug, i look at films differently of course... i still love desperado very much and i'm sorry to report that i didn't care much for "once upon a time..."
regarding the digital vs. film thing - most of this movie looked fabulous. he does love the warm color palette for sure. and so do i, so i love that aspect.
but there were plenty of shots that did not look so great. if i hadn't known it was shot on digital, i wouldn't have even thought about it, which does say something. but knowing it was digital, i could definately see when it didn't work. some of the shots where there was extreme motion in the frame (not camera motion, but the subject itself) looked real weird and blurry in a freaky way. but overall, it looked beautiful.

my main complaint with this movie is not the way it looked, however. i thought it was actually a pretty lame film. desperado is way way better, it does a better job of conveying a certain mood and the simplicity of the movie adds to it's impact. the new one is way too convoluted with the story. and the action is numbing by the end. just one cool looking shot of gunfighting after another... i got bored. and sadly, this movie really isn't about the mariachi at all. his story just happens to fit into a larger plot.

but it did look really cool. and maybe that's the point of this series of movies...

Charles Papert · September 15th, 2003, 12:42 AM

Hmmm...what do Lucas and Rodriguez appear to have in common? Seemingly, their energies seem to be more focused on the technology they are using to make their movies than on the stories they are telling.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · September 15th, 2003, 03:29 AM

Not only that, Charles, but their maniac foveation on technology is geared toward economy--rather than masterfulness--of image production. With either of them, the goal seems to be the ability to tell every story by shooting actors in front of blue screens and then comping in busy backgrounds. The method's intent is quite different from the genuine novelty of some of the master techno-visual innovators (e.g., Griffith, Hitchcock, Kubrick) and the results have been, not silk, but chintz.

Nick Medrano · September 15th, 2003, 09:09 AM

The technology is not the problem for OATIM, it's the fact that Rodriguez got so many cool actors that he didn't know what to do with them. He also had a larger budget than usual--which is still MUCH smaller than the average film (30million).

He just tried to do too much.

Darrell Hinton · September 16th, 2003, 03:12 PM

I actually liked the movie. I'll admit the story wasn't the greatest, but it was a fun movie regardless of its lacking in story (as if there hasn't been enough of those lately). I think it was definately worth the ticket price, although it does leave you thinking about what could have been had there been more time and concentration spent on fine-tuning the story.

Michael Wisniewski · September 16th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Just saw the movie, I really liked it and the story, but there is definitely something off about the movie. Two things that kept bugging me and kicking me out of the story back into my head:

1. I thought the editing was off. The flow of the story was very "jarring". It felt like several important scenes hadn't quite ended yet or resolved themselves before we cut to the next scene/shot. Emotionally it's like they were "just" about to make the point of the scene/shot and then the story changes the subject. It ended up being distracting. I admit I might be a little sensitive to this because, this is a common complaint of mine with a lot of current movies, especially those with a lot of action.

2. I also felt the composition and camera work was amateurish in some areas. I remember thinking at those points "video!" :-) Some of it was stabilization and some of it was framing. The shots felt "technically" correct but were missing that little adjustment that pushes a shot from just simply "correct" to well done. Also with so many mythic characters I thought a little creative composition (related to story and character) would have gone a long way.

I did find it an enjoyable movie, story is a bit thin, like everyone is saying, but fun to watch.

Rob Lohman · October 5th, 2003, 07:29 AM

Damn... Now I really want to see this. When I was at IBC this
year here in Amsterdam they installed a D-CINEMA system there
(to my knowledge there isn't anyone yet here in Holland) which
I saw a lot of footage on. Looked quite amazing. Then sunday
they showed Pirates of the Carrabean digital which was very
amazing and without any flaws as well (I just seen the film
version a couple of weeks before).

The thing that bugged me though is that UOATIM came out in
the US 1 day before IBC started. Then they are showing us a
movie digitally projected which originated on film (would have
been better to show us Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo or better
yet: UOATIM!). And now I have to wait till december the 25th
to see UOATIM which was shot digital projected on film.... Argh,
the frustration with some things!

Well, if anybody in Holland is reading this who is going to show
this movie early and/or in digital (as it should be projected),
please don't forget to invite me. Thank you.

rant mode off.

Christopher Hughes · October 5th, 2003, 03:44 PM

I think UOATIM is a good film and I guess I'm a little biased loving Mexico and having a Mexican accent and all, but I think the film fullfils its aims: to Entertain. I think R.R's passion to entertain with El Mariachi Treo, Spy Kids Trio (I liked SP 3D), which I think a lot of film critics seem to miss in today's world. A lot of movie critics seem to look for things that are not there, trying to find the "inner" of the films without even looking at the outer. Like Pirates of the Carribean was tipped by critics to be a summer flop, even before it went out to the masses. And the verdict, well every one that watched it in the Cinema walked out with a huge smile and very well entertained faces. Same as with UOATIM.

I never heard anyone complain that UOATIM was digital and not film, I bet they didnt even know, yet a few days before I watched Italian Job and people said it was a bunch of Hollywood crap and had nothing of the magic of the original (Original Italian Job is a national institution here in England). So I think people are starting to realise that digital film doesn't effect the story or entertainment value one bit, or they just dont care as long as they get value and entertainment for their money.

I think that Rodriguez is going down the right path showing that why should time be wasted with film, when you can use digital and get almost instantaneous feedback on the shots and move on. So films can be done cheaper and cheaper films means more can be made. The our Next Generation is going to wonder why or how we ever used archaic methods of Film and its imprefections, as they watching HD movies on their little Palm pilots.

Things can only get better with technology, so the more pioneers like Rodriquez we have the better.

September 12th, 2003, 05:43 PM	#17
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	So Nick is that a thumbs up or thumbs down? Worth seeing the movie in a theatre or wait for DVD? __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

September 12th, 2003, 09:19 PM	#20
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	<<<-- just so you can see how the video looks compared to film. Of course, they still transfered the video to film.... -->>> Yes I am curious to see what Robert Rodriquez did this time around. During the DVD commentary for Spy Kids 2, he lamented that he was dissapointed with the "film" version and wanted people to see the DVD version because it showed what he "really" shot. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

September 15th, 2003, 12:42 AM	#24
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Hmmm...what do Lucas and Rodriguez appear to have in common? Seemingly, their energies seem to be more focused on the technology they are using to make their movies than on the stories they are telling. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 15th, 2003, 03:29 AM	#25
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Not only that, Charles, but their maniac foveation on technology is geared toward economy--rather than masterfulness--of image production. With either of them, the goal seems to be the ability to tell every story by shooting actors in front of blue screens and then comping in busy backgrounds. The method's intent is quite different from the genuine novelty of some of the master techno-visual innovators (e.g., Griffith, Hitchcock, Kubrick) and the results have been, not silk, but chintz. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 16th, 2003, 08:39 PM	#28
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	Just saw the movie, I really liked it and the story, but there is definitely something off about the movie. Two things that kept bugging me and kicking me out of the story back into my head: 1. I thought the editing was off. The flow of the story was very "jarring". It felt like several important scenes hadn't quite ended yet or resolved themselves before we cut to the next scene/shot. Emotionally it's like they were "just" about to make the point of the scene/shot and then the story changes the subject. It ended up being distracting. I admit I might be a little sensitive to this because, this is a common complaint of mine with a lot of current movies, especially those with a lot of action. 2. I also felt the composition and camera work was amateurish in some areas. I remember thinking at those points "video!" :-) Some of it was stabilization and some of it was framing. The shots felt "technically" correct but were missing that little adjustment that pushes a shot from just simply "correct" to well done. Also with so many mythic characters I thought a little creative composition (related to story and character) would have gone a long way. I did find it an enjoyable movie, story is a bit thin, like everyone is saying, but fun to watch. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

September 12th, 2003, 03:31 PM	#16
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Just saw OATIM...wow. Looks like film..heck, it is film! Anyways the movie....eeehhhhhh......story is still king.

September 12th, 2003, 07:47 PM	#18
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Unfortunately, I thought this movie was terrible. But, many critics loved it, including Ebert. So, judge it for youself. I say, see it in the theater just so you can see how the video looks compared to film. Of course, they still transfered the video to film....

September 12th, 2003, 08:00 PM	#19
Brian Huey Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Seattle , WA Posts: 184	I agree that the story definitely lacks in places but with was an entertaining and fun movie, pretty much what I was expecting. I recommend going to see it. Course it probably has nothing on Bubba Ho-Tep which is showing here in Seattle next week. http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/bubba_ho-tep/ Cheers, Huey

September 13th, 2003, 09:40 AM	#21
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	I didn't see it but my son told me that during the action scenes there was something going on that made him think 'bad video'. I read on another forum that the second half had a definite video look to it.

September 13th, 2003, 11:10 AM	#22
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Only slightly off-topic, but as long as the topic is "FIlm is dead". - Go see "Open Range" to see how beautiful film can truly be. It's an old style western, in pacing, theme and cinematography. Long lingering shots on scenic splendour... and color so rich and deep you could feel the breeze coming off the screen.

September 14th, 2003, 10:18 PM	#23
Ryan Martino Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico Posts: 48	hi all - just saw this film tonight. i was a huge fan of desperado even before i knew rodriquez's story at all. so now that i have the movie making bug, i look at films differently of course... i still love desperado very much and i'm sorry to report that i didn't care much for "once upon a time..." regarding the digital vs. film thing - most of this movie looked fabulous. he does love the warm color palette for sure. and so do i, so i love that aspect. but there were plenty of shots that did not look so great. if i hadn't known it was shot on digital, i wouldn't have even thought about it, which does say something. but knowing it was digital, i could definately see when it didn't work. some of the shots where there was extreme motion in the frame (not camera motion, but the subject itself) looked real weird and blurry in a freaky way. but overall, it looked beautiful. my main complaint with this movie is not the way it looked, however. i thought it was actually a pretty lame film. desperado is way way better, it does a better job of conveying a certain mood and the simplicity of the movie adds to it's impact. the new one is way too convoluted with the story. and the action is numbing by the end. just one cool looking shot of gunfighting after another... i got bored. and sadly, this movie really isn't about the mariachi at all. his story just happens to fit into a larger plot. but it did look really cool. and maybe that's the point of this series of movies...

September 15th, 2003, 09:09 AM	#26
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	The technology is not the problem for OATIM, it's the fact that Rodriguez got so many cool actors that he didn't know what to do with them. He also had a larger budget than usual--which is still MUCH smaller than the average film (30million). He just tried to do too much.

September 16th, 2003, 03:12 PM	#27
Darrell Hinton Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 77	I actually liked the movie. I'll admit the story wasn't the greatest, but it was a fun movie regardless of its lacking in story (as if there hasn't been enough of those lately). I think it was definately worth the ticket price, although it does leave you thinking about what could have been had there been more time and concentration spent on fine-tuning the story.

October 5th, 2003, 07:29 AM	#29
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Damn... Now I really want to see this. When I was at IBC this year here in Amsterdam they installed a D-CINEMA system there (to my knowledge there isn't anyone yet here in Holland) which I saw a lot of footage on. Looked quite amazing. Then sunday they showed Pirates of the Carrabean digital which was very amazing and without any flaws as well (I just seen the film version a couple of weeks before). The thing that bugged me though is that UOATIM came out in the US 1 day before IBC started. Then they are showing us a movie digitally projected which originated on film (would have been better to show us Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo or better yet: UOATIM!). And now I have to wait till december the 25th to see UOATIM which was shot digital projected on film.... Argh, the frustration with some things! Well, if anybody in Holland is reading this who is going to show this movie early and/or in digital (as it should be projected), please don't forget to invite me. Thank you. rant mode off. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 5th, 2003, 03:44 PM	#30
Christopher Hughes Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Sunderland, England (y Merida, Mexico) Posts: 269	I think UOATIM is a good film and I guess I'm a little biased loving Mexico and having a Mexican accent and all, but I think the film fullfils its aims: to Entertain. I think R.R's passion to entertain with El Mariachi Treo, Spy Kids Trio (I liked SP 3D), which I think a lot of film critics seem to miss in today's world. A lot of movie critics seem to look for things that are not there, trying to find the "inner" of the films without even looking at the outer. Like Pirates of the Carribean was tipped by critics to be a summer flop, even before it went out to the masses. And the verdict, well every one that watched it in the Cinema walked out with a huge smile and very well entertained faces. Same as with UOATIM. I never heard anyone complain that UOATIM was digital and not film, I bet they didnt even know, yet a few days before I watched Italian Job and people said it was a bunch of Hollywood crap and had nothing of the magic of the original (Original Italian Job is a national institution here in England). So I think people are starting to realise that digital film doesn't effect the story or entertainment value one bit, or they just dont care as long as they get value and entertainment for their money. I think that Rodriguez is going down the right path showing that why should time be wasted with film, when you can use digital and get almost instantaneous feedback on the shots and move on. So films can be done cheaper and cheaper films means more can be made. The our Next Generation is going to wonder why or how we ever used archaic methods of Film and its imprefections, as they watching HD movies on their little Palm pilots. Things can only get better with technology, so the more pioneers like Rodriquez we have the better.