Blu ray review: Country Strong

[madmac]

"Country Strong" is not a bad film, it's merely an ok film to be honest. I kind of thought the music aspect of the film would be there but on the whole, it wasn't there in any major way. The music was simply average as was Paltrow's performances.

The Blu ray was needlessly letterboxed for this presentation. When I say 'needlessly' I mean to say that the cinematography did not warrant it!.

Watch this movie only if you are a fan of Paltrow and/or country music

6/10 stars for this baby!!.

[George Bellefontaine]

Yeah, I bought this when it came out. I love musicals ( today's and yesterday's) and/or stories with a musical background. I kinda liked Country Strong, though it won't win any awards, that's for sure, but that girl Gwyneth can really sing and she was the saving grace. I also like Tim McGraw but would like to see him get some meatier roles. The guy can act. He proved that in Friday Night Lights.

Today I picked up Crazy Heart in the blu-ray bargain bin. Now there's a real story with great music.

[madmac]

Yeah, I bought this when it came out. I love musicals ( today's and yesterday's) and/or stories with a musical background. I kinda liked Country Strong, though it won't win any awards, that's for sure, but that girl Gwyneth can really sing and she was the saving grace. I also like Tim McGraw but would like to see him get some meatier roles. The guy can act. He proved that in Friday Night Lights.

Today I picked up Crazy Heart in the blu-ray bargain bin. Now there's a real story with great music.

Now you're talking George!!. Crazy Heart is what Country Strong could have been with a better story, script and acting. I loved Crazy Heart !!. :T

[aud19]

I don't know what it is about Gwyneth as I tend to prefer my women a bit "curvier" (and she's a bit of a "stick", let's be honest) but she's just got the elegant yet sweet, mysterious yet approachable thing going that I just dig about her.

Haven't seen this one though, not sure it's up my alley. Been a while since she made a "must see" for me.

[Bob]

I am going to watch this tonight. Madmac, actually there is a reason for it to be letter-boxed. It was shot with anamorphic lenses so, to be shown on a TV it has to be letter-boxed.

Not having seen it yet I am going to guess what your objection is. It is probably a intimate film with few vistas that may well have been better suited for super 35. However, many cameramen hate super 35 because it means giving up control over the framing. I know for a fact that John Bailey is one of those. And, I don't know of any that still use 185. I am sure there are many, I just haven't worked with them.

Anamorphic used to be considered very difficult for a cameraman and only a few used it. Funny thing is almost all the movies I worked on were anamorphic and I never understood cinematographers that felt it was to much of a challenge to light.

Anyways, I believe that you have become accustomed to a full screen. You have to remember that the 16:9 aspect ratio of our widescreen tv's doesn't exist in film. There are no lenses for that aspect ratio. HD video does shot in that aspect ratio and that is taking over film. To compensate for the home video market super 35 came into being. It can be cropped to be shown in the theater and accommodate their screens, and also be cropped to fill a 16:9 TV. But, that means the camera operator has to also compromise his framing. It means a somewhat inexact framing so that both theater and tv aspect ratios can exist on the same piece of film. Many older cameramen just hate that and I am sure that is why this film wasn't shoot in super 35.

A anamorphic film could be blown up digitally, cropping the sides, and filling the top and bottom of a tv screen. But, of course that absolutely would compromise the original framing and blowing up the image would also compromise the quality of the film, sort of like a record with lots of ticks and pops.

Not meant to be a lecture. Just a little info as to why it was wide screen. You are probably right that for tv it would have been better for it to be shot in super 35. Maybe even better for the theater release. On top of that John Bailey is a pompous jerk and I can hear him now explaining to the director why it needed to be anamorphic in his condescending voice.

[madmac]

I am going to watch this tonight. Madmac, actually there is a reason for it to be letter-boxed. It was shot with anamorphic lenses so, to be shown on a TV it has to be letter-boxed.

Not having seen it yet I am going to guess what your objection is. It is probably a intimate film with few vistas that may well have been better suited for super 35. However, many cameramen hate super 35 because it means giving up control over the framing. I know for a fact that John Bailey is one of those. And, I don't know of any that still use 185. I am sure there are many, I just haven't worked with them.

Anamorphic used to be considered very difficult for a cameraman and only a few used it. Funny thing is almost all the movies I worked on were anamorphic and I never understood cinematographers that felt it was to much of a challenge to light.

Anyways, I believe that you have become accustomed to a full screen. You have to remember that the 16:9 aspect ratio of our widescreen tv's doesn't exist in film. There are no lenses for that aspect ratio. HD video does shot in that aspect ratio and that is taking over film. To compensate for the home video market super 35 came into being. It can be cropped to be shown in the theater and accommodate their screens, and also be cropped to fill a 16:9 TV. But, that means the camera operator has to also compromise his framing. It means a somewhat inexact framing so that both theater and tv aspect ratios can exist on the same piece of film. Many older cameramen just hate that and I am sure that is why this film wasn't shoot in super 35.

A anamorphic film could be blown up digitally, cropping the sides, and filling the top and bottom of a tv screen. But, of course that absolutely would compromise the original framing and blowing up the image would also compromise the quality of the film, sort of like a record with lots of ticks and pops.

Not meant to be a lecture. Just a little info as to why it was wide screen. You are probably right that for tv it would have been better for it to be shot in super 35. Maybe even better for the theater release. On top of that John Bailey is a pompous jerk and I can hear him now explaining to the director why it needed to be anamorphic in his condescending voice.

Thanks for the Cameraman's explanation Bob!. Watch the film and tell me if this had to be done in Anamorphic ok??. :roll:

[Bob]

It is amazing how good acting and fun music managed to carry this film and make it watchable. Story wise, it was really not written or told well. You barely understand each characters background, motivation, and relationships.

Even so, I felt each actor carried off their role well and I liked each and everyone of them on the screen. I also liked the little bit of music that was included. Kudos' to Garrett Hedlund. You would never know that he wasn't a singer by trade. He was found in a karaoke bar singing a Pearl Jam song. Tim McGraw took him under his wing and educated him on being "country" looks, walk, singing, etc.

As to Madmacs question about the aspect ratio. For me it didn't add or subtract from the film. It certainly wasn't used to make wide exterior or interior shots for establishment. Nor, was it put to use in medium shots to carry more than one person in the frame at the same time. Your standard, wide, medium, over the shoulder, close up shots were used throughout the film. The wider frame could have be used to eliminate some of the over the shoulder shots.

Doesn't surprise me though. The cinematographer is a pseudo intellectual that really is just a average artist. Doesn't make mistakes but, never does anything risky or furthers the art of cinematography. Odd, considering when he firsts works with someone he makes them sit down and watch the Conformist and then bores the heck out them with a lecture on how ground breaking it was.

Note to John, you have the talent, go out on a limb and do something groundbreaking yourself. Your career is really over anyways, take a filmatic risk at least once before your totally gone from the film world.