i may live to regret this

but how will i know which ones are bad if i don't watch all of them

i fuckin loved Mario 2 as a kid. i didn't play Zelda 2 until much later in life, but i appreciated that it was a different experience from the first.

I'm glad to have finally knocked this off my nigh-infinite To Watch list, this was really good.

it's been a long time since i've watched the James Mangold verison, and i like a lot of his other movies, so i should give it another shot. but my gut feeling is that Delmer Daves's original is a lot more emotionally complex and nuanced, where Mangold's is gritty and dark. Just different approaches.

Oh! The ending is different from the remake. I wasn't expecting that. It seemed that it was absolutely building toward the same tragic ending of the 2007 version, especially when Alice arrives in Contention, but the 1957 version actually has a happier ending. And...i think i prefer it??

specifically with the women. there was a character reveal early on where i felt that Emmy's reaction would be pretty relevant, but she wasn't in the frame. They didn't cut back to her for like 2 minutes. Just now, we had a moment like that with Alice. I would've even snuck close-ups in for both.

one of the advantages of this old-timey cinematography is keeping multiple characters in frame so that you can see how people react, how they feel, which adds a lot of depth & complexity to the story. even still, there've been a couple spots where i feel like they missed a dramatic moment.

aha! even in this legendary western, you've got the good ol trope. bad guy takes up a post on the roof, good guy shoots him, and instead of falling back dead, he pitches himself over the edge, hits another building, and rolls off dramatically.

delicious.

well. i am finding that it's definitely harder to skeet a good movie, because i am fully invested. the dialog in this is stone cold. lot of really good lines. the cinematography tells the story. it's quite good.

there's a lot of information being conveyed in these shots besides what's said. characters usually do something while speaking. shots last longer. the characters move around with complex blocking. the camera moves to accommodate them.

there's a youtuber i started watching this summer who's a bit younger than me (and has bad politics, but fortunately he's moved away from that commentary), but speaks extensively about how much better film direction was in ye olde days. i am seeing a lot of what he speaks of in these dialog scenes.

i've seen the 2007 remake with Russell Crowe, but this is my first time seeing the original.

the first two films were financially successful because they sent around the offering plate after screening them at church. if you saw a filmed sermon about Heaven, and the preacher talked exclusively about having grand riches, would you want to give him your money?

People want Heaven to be a place where their needs are met. That's it. You'll see your loved ones again and you'll never be apart. You'll have friends and community.

What use is a mansion in Heaven? What use are mountains of precious jewels?

As always, Estus, what the fuck are you talking about?

This quote is from the book and ut's presented uncritically. I think the problem is that Estus's description of Heaven is just, "You will be rich! You will have THINGS! You will look cool!" and that's just not what normal people want from Heaven. His description of Heaven sounds awful, frankly.

doesn't quite answer the question, though. his Wikipedia page also doesn't say anything about this boxed set, just that he worked on the restoration of The Burning Hell.

no idea.

I guess that's all i have to say. i probably forgot a few thoughts i can add later, if they're worthwhile. i give the boxed set, as a whole, 6/10. wonderful presentation, glad it exists, gonna forget all about it now.

although it's cyber monday and now i'mma go grab the rest of Jean Rollin's films.