This was the first movie I've seen in a long time that I believe simply doesn't translate from big screen movie theater viewing to home viewing.
I have a huge screen & projector. But still, it didn't have enough going for it to "fill" my screen.
Oddly enough, it was probably enough of a adventure movie that I might've liked it in the theater.
Seeing it at home. It was horrible. The plot was dumb. Nicholas Cage was not compelling. The plot holes were almost HIGHLIGHTED in the darn thing. We were howling through about 1/2 of it.
Sad...so sad...
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
For a "treasure hunt/suspense" flick that does translate well to the small screen, may I suggest Charade?
The 1963 film starring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, directed by Stanley Donen?
It's great.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I think the trend for movies to be viewed at home is sad. There is something to be said for not being able to go to the bathroom without missing something. I'm not sure what, but something.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Or paying a king's ransom for popcorn and soda! Don't forget that.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
No no no! I would much rather watch a movie laying on my couch in my pajamas. They frown on that at the theater.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I love seeing movies in the theater. I love the size of it, tjhe sound, the total immersion that isn't possible in a screen less than 72 feet wide. I love watching an exciting action movie nd feeling the excitement of the audience around me, or the swell of emotion during a romance, or the tidal wave of laughter in a comedy.
However, in the last five years I've been weighing that against the ticket prices, concession prices (our local theater doesn't even list the prices anymore, you find out when they get rung up), the lack of attention to the focus or sound, the general dinginess of the whole place, the obnoxious manners of the other patrons... These days the only thing that will get me into a theater, reluctantly, is a movie that demands a big screen. I'll see X-Men and Superman and Pirates of the Caribbean in a theater this summer, but the rest I'll wait three months and see on DVD.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Sure, but then you fall asleep. It takes us weeks to watch a movie together, because my husband is snoring within the first fifteen minutes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
lol...
I used to LOVE going to the movie theater. I would actually pay and see several shows in one day. I would buy their delicious addictive popcorn and a Diet Coke the size of a Buick.
It was a big part of my life.
Then, I don't know what happened, but there was a time when I got too busy to go to the movies for about 3 months.
And, seriously, the habit is broken.
We make plans to go to the movies and then just get involved in something else and never make it.
We'll make a special effort for something we've been waiting for. But actually figure out what to see at the theater if we don't already know what we're going there for -- nope.
I know Ice Age 2 is playing now. I'd like to see it. But if I don't see it now, I'll catch on DVD later.
I don't even know what other movies are playing.
I figure if there's something really big coming up, I'll hear about it at Hatrack.
Oh well.
I do miss having my popcorn popped FOR me...
Other than that, no big deal.
But yeah, some movies just don't make the transition to home viewing. I suspect it's akin to what Chris was talking about -- the tension, the other audience members...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The big screen . . . oh wait, we've got that. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And because dkw reacts so well, I also get the audience reaction. Especially on anything that involves pain or gross out -- she's the best audience evah!
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Other Audience Members have ruined too many theatre experiences for me. And popcorn--tastes ok--but it also makes a ridiculous amount of noise. I only go to the theatre when I'm sure no one else will be there.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I love going to the theater, especially for geeky movies. Sitting in a opening midnight showing for a movie with a huge following like Lotr or Serenity is incredible.
Ni!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I loved National Treasure. I may be the only one who found the movie thoroughly enjoyable. There was something morally compelling about Cage's character, a simple sense of duty and ethic. I found him adorable. And then there was the conversation when the couple was changing in the dressing room.
I wasn't paying attention to the plot holes or plausibility. I throw all of that out when I see an action movie. I could care less if it were consistent. I left the movie liking Ben Gates as a fictional person, and that's a rare thing.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I thought the movie was ridiculously bad, but I saw it with a couple of people I'd just met. They seemed to like it a lot so I pretended to go along with it.
The whole time I was watching it, I was thinking that it was trying to rip off The Da Vinci Code. And, really, why would anyone do that? It's way too obvious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm surprised by all the negativity towards National Treasure. I really liked it. Maybe it's the history geek in me? I don't know. It was fun. Implausible, out there, crazy, sure, but it was fun, and cool. And it was enjoyable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It was horrible. The plot was dumb. Nicholas Cage was not compelling. The plot holes were almost HIGHLIGHTED in the darn thing.
My reaction as well.
I don't care enough about or like enough movies to be bothered to go to the theatre more than a few times a year, even if it were free with babysitting.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I liked it in a "turn your brain off and enjoy" kind of way...and OSC gave a glowing review of it back in 2004.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"The whole time I was watching it, I was thinking that it was trying to rip off The Da Vinci Code. And, really, why would anyone do that? It's way too obvious."
This may or may not be a newsflash, but The Davinci Code was not the first history-mystery ever written or made into a film.
I am a history geek as well as a mystery geek, so I will see this movie no matter how bad it supposedly is.
Katherine Neville writes a great history-mystery. "The Eight" and "The Magic Circle" were my favorites. In fact, "The Magic Circle" has a similar theme to "The Davinci Code."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I liked National Treasure.
I also watched it just after finishing The DaVinci Code.
My first reaction to it was that it was the movie that Dan Brown's book was trying in vain to be. It was so much better in so many ways than the DaVinci Code that I can't even begin to think about them.
Then again, I thought the DaVinci Code was an awful, awful, awful, awful book, and I wanted to reach through the pages and grab Dan Brown by the throat and throttle him until he stopped using heavy handed writer trickery to prop up a collapsing plot.
See, I thought National Treasure was the movie made from Dave Barry's parody column about the DaVinci Code - which was hysterical - and I went into it thinking it was going to be horrible.
It wasn't. It was a summer popcorn movie of the "no deep thinking to be found here" variety, but it was fun.
Of course, I did watch it on a bus.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I liked National Treasure better than the Da Vinci Code because Gates was a believer. Langdon was a guy on the run, whereas Gates was a man driven by a sense of duty. The same could be said of the respective women.
I thought National Treasure was beautifully wrought.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:and OSC gave a glowing review of it back in 2004
I know. I probably woud never have seen it otherwise.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)