Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:26 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962 
Author Message
Post 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
From Zeppelin on the cinematic journey

Anyway, onto the matter at hand, No. 13 Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia is an incredibly famous film. Considered by many to be the greatest historical epic ever made, Lawrence of Arabia manages to consistently make it onto many critics top 10 lists, not to mention the AFI's list of the top 10 greatest American films despite the fact that it was entirely British made. I was surprised then, after watching Lawrence, that it reminded me more of an art film than of an epic war film. Yes, Lawrence does focus on the Arabs overthrowing the Turks during WW1, but it was Lawrence's atmosphere that ended up truly entrancing me. The constant shots of the desert sun, the long shots of men slowly coming over the dunes, the large but heartfelt score. The first two and 1/2 hours of Lawrence of Arabia might be some of the most absorbing hours of movie I've ever seen. Actually, I should correct myself: Using its wide, "artsy" shots of the desert as framing for the story, Lawrence of Arabia becomes an epic of the highest quality, where men become just men fighting in a conflict greater than themselves.

Of course, that's not to say the other hour fifteen of Lawrence's obscenely long running time bored me. Anchored by the rock-solid performance by Peter O'Toole (who has one of the most oddly sculpted faces I've ever seen), The final third of Lawrence of Arabia became more of a character study than the sweeping epic the first 2/3s was. Peter O'Toole's emotionally crippled visage as he yells "No Prisoners!" serves as the fundamental image of the last third. Lawrence's ark is almost entirely contained withen this time period. It's a different kind of memorable from the first part (in some ways it's almost haunting), but it's still memorable all the same.

I don't know how historically accurate Lawrence of Arabia was, but I do know that I don't care. Lawrence of Arabia is a work of art, a movie that is more of an experience than a film. It's no surprise that Lawrence of Arabia has become one of the standards by which great films are judged. Unlike many great movies Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence works because it's a film. It never would've worked as a novel or anything else. A prime example of a film as both majestic and emotionally striking. 10/10


Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:29 am
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
I think this movie deserves a bump. I had the good fortune to see it lately, and I don't regret it. Lawrence is an immense movie, and you'll probably have to plan ahead of time to sit down for this one. It's worth it, though, and it wouldn't be the same movie if it wasn't so long. There are some great battle scenes too, but I felt they were tertiary to the main point of the film. I think Ebert said it best in his review of the movie;

Quote:
I've noticed that when people remember ''Lawrence of Arabia,'' they don't talk about the details of the plot. They get a certain look in their eye, as if they are remembering the whole experience, and have never quite been able to put it into words. Although it seems to be a traditional narrative film--like ''Bridge on the River Kwai,'' which Lean made just before it, or ''Doctor Zhivago,'' which he made just after--it actually has more in common with such essentially visual epics as Kubrick's ''2001'' or Eisenstein's ''Alexander Nevsky.'' It is spectacle and experience, and its ideas are about things you can see or feel, not things you can say. Much of its appeal is based on the fact that it does not contain a complex story with a lot of dialogue; we remember the quiet, empty passages, the sun rising across the desert, the intricate lines traced by the wind in the sand.


I think the scene that best sums up what this movie is all about is that scene after the
[Reveal] Spoiler:
capture of Aqaba
where Lawrence guides his camel out to the coast. He stares out across the ocean into a sunset that gives the sea a warm orange glow. There's a moment of silence and then he says,

"God, I love this country."

I remember the first time I started watching Lawrence a few months ago, I got bored by all the desert scenes and just sort of wandered off when the Intermission rolled around. I decided to give it another try, and then I realized that those long, wide shots of the desert were the point of the movie, and that in spite of everything else, it's about a harsh and unforgiving, yet beautiful, desert, and a man who fell in love with it.

Great movie.


Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:15 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
It's been a while, so I can't really add much other than to say that I agree. My memory of plot and some characters is indeed vague. It's the harsh desert landscapes that stick with you. Ebert's comparison to 2001 is apt, though I think 2001 is far superior to Lawrence which occasionally suffers from its running time.

Majoraphasia mentioned somewhere that he might check this one out soon. If he does, you'll get a much better reply than what I mustered.


Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:45 am
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1441
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
bumped for major's review


Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
calvero wrote:
bumped for major's review


Y tu, calvero?

Okay. I'm going to stall for this one post by stating the obvious: reviewing a movie like Lawrence of Arabia is extremely difficult. Also: I'm not a movie critic. Can anything fresh be said about Lawrence? But I certainly owe some words for this movie. And, perversely, I Spit on Your Grave. I think I'll do Lawrence (and Au Revoir Les Enfants and Lonely Are The Brave and The Sundowners) before doing any more of those exploitation films. It'll be good for me.


Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:37 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
In two posts it's what I've come here to type.

The coming-of-age tale! Who doesn’t love a story about a boy, trapped in a man’s body, who is forced to grapple with his idealism and grow up that little bit into a person that is more than his ideals and more than the sum of his disappointments? In the canon there is Holden Caulfield, bitter with everyone and at everything, ultimately driven crazy when he takes a look over the edge. Howsabout John Yossarian? He makes his escape, dodging gunfire and the blade of a hooker, out of the grip of military-inspired insanity and the last time we get a look at him he’s basically clicking his heels. There was American Beauty, Dances With Wolves… really any story can be thought of as a coming-of-age tale. They’re like ghost stories or mysteries: flexible, sort of inherent, and inescapable. Sometimes they’re short and to-the-point and sometimes a coming-of-age tale features a few trains getting blown from the rails.

Wait. No. That’s just

Attachment:
IMAG0051.jpg
IMAG0051.jpg [ 37.54 KiB | Viewed 2937 times ]



The best scene in David Lean’s massive Lawrence of Arabia can be found about halfway through the movie. T.E. Lawrence, back to home base of Cairo after a campaign in Aqaba, is reporting to his general about the success of his assignment. Only he looks terrible: dressed in borrowed clothing, nervous, and trying to reconcile his killing of a man he had gone out of his way to save only a short time before.

“I liked it,” says Lawrence when he confesses the murder. Ah. Weird how you can be watching a movie about an arrogant hero, expecting this movie to be History’s most ambitious puff piece, and find that the movie really is only about Lawrence: The Man Who Would Be Blurry. Lean, more often than not, films Lawrence (Peter O’Toole in his first lead role) from below, in shadow, as a shadow, behind a screen… what kind of historical reach-around does this? So I’ll admit my mistake: I thought Lawrence of Arabia was going to be an epic about a bold (and he is bold) man that valiantly goes to battle for his ideals and wins the war for all. That’s not the movie I watched, punk.

Lawrence of Arabia is the biggest, loudest, most adjective-demanding coming-of-age story of all time. Instead of T.E. Lawrence the Saint we get T.E. Lawrence the Ambivalent Homosexual Who Gets More and More Obscure over 227 Minutes. The film doesn’t end with a knowing smile or wisely nodding head but with Lawrence behind the dirty windshield of a jeep, expression unreadable. It took me a second to remember that Lawrence dies within the first 7 minutes of the movie, laughing to himself as he pilots a motorcycle into his maker’s little comfy home. Small favors, I guess: he died as he, for the most part, lived. Or: he died like a little kid that, for a second too long, always acts like he knows.

Right! Lawrence acts like he knows. In Cairo, this in the early scenes of the film’s first act, Lawrence is shown extinguishing a match with his fingers. A test. He knows it’ll hurt but claims that minding that it hurts is the real hurdle. Lean spends well over three hours showing us all kinds of spice from Lawrence’s exploits in Arab country, fighting the devil Turks, as a way of giving examples of how the man who shouldn’t mind that it hurts learns that it’s really fucking painful and, man, he finds he probably needs to mind.
I guess the question is this: does Lawrence of Arabia do anything important aside from the epic scale and thorough (and historically inaccurate… not that this matters, really) telling of Lawrence’s adult adventures? I mean, we could get the same kind of lessons from a quick read of any number of books, from any number of shorter films. Right? Is there any value to what Lean has put on the screen aside from the explosions, epic battle scenes, Lawrence finding himself unsure of what he believed he was? Is Lawrence of Arabia 227 minutes of watching a man get cloudier?

I’ve bitched about microcosm before. I’m not a fan. Yeah, I know it pops up in virtually everything and it’s kind of a buzz shorthand for “excellent and compact”. Lawrence of Arabia doesn’t really seem all that compact and, lest you think I’m about to be the only guy in history that disliked one of the most celebrated films of all time, it doesn’t actually look all that much like a microcosm of History’s big-ass design. I mean, sure, history could be defined as a bunch of powerful people acting like they know and saving/burying the masses under this assumption. If you want to get cheap and define it that way than Lawrence of Arabia is film’s most gigantic postmortem of another one of history’s many unknowable figures.

Screwing with the question, at least for me, is the fact that, again for me, Lawrence of Arabia was exceptionally entertaining. 227 minutes flew by twice (I was going to double-dip and upgrade my copy to Blu-Ray only to find that the movie, out of all the damn movies they’ve given the treatment, isn’t yet available on Blu-Ray) and both times I was pretty sure that I was watching a small character study rather than a glorious Technicolor epic. Well. I mean, it’s that too. But what makes it special?

So I’m really gonna go out on a limb, take a leap, say that the movie is the greatest biopic of all time. Biopic. Was it a biopic? I guess. What isn’t? No. I dunno. Not a biopic, precisely, but a mega-Shark-and-Gigantic-Octopus huge telling of what it means to be Lawrence. Not Lawrence as a hero, leader of men, fighter of Turks, arrogant jerk but Lawrence as an actual human being. Which is weird, or it was for me, because movies so rarely capture anything essentially human. Yeah yeah yeah they get some details correct, maybe the little things like a person touching the inside of someone’s wrist or looking pleased when he sees his dog walk on its hind legs, but Lawrence of Arabia gives us Lawrence as Lawrence.

And I know this seems overly simple. But, with all the microcosm this and microcosm that and “Look Closer.” (which I like, really, when it’s not just that), seeing a movie that gives the entire man, his internal dialogue and everything that actually makes him look and sound like the kind of person you’ve met before, is a rarity for me. Freakish rarity.

to be continued


Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:45 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
Lawrence gets continued starting... right now

Which leads us to the movie itself. Since Lawrence of Arabia isn’t about “what kind of man is built of this character” but about “Lawrence: what the hell, man?” there has to evidence that I’m not totally, completely full of shit. So I’ll submit the obvious:

Right after the scene that features the puddle-walking Lawrence seen way above this sentence we get Lawrence broken by the dreaded Turks in a beat-down that left the man uncertain about how Jesusian (is that a word? It is now) was working for him. Prior to this Lawrence is all about the ideals (go find a college kid and you’ll find the same set of ideals if not the swagger) and haphazardly, successfully though, saves lives and ends lives and does it all for the greater good. After the beating he’s morose, introspective (for the first time, I believe) and ready for violence. Was the beating all that bad? It didn’t kill him. But it’s the first time we see Lawrence see himself as others probably saw him. I mean, look at that picture! What kind of man is this that walks across the water dressed in the clothing of the fucking victims of the Crusades? After he gets slapped down by Turks he’s not the “I like the desert ‘cause it’s clean” guy any longer. Why?

I haven’t read through what I’ve written but I’m pretty sure that I haven’t said that the movie is very clearly as great as its legend would have it. And not because it’s so influential or David Lean did a great job and O’Toole is awesome and so forth blah yap yap. It is influential, Lean did a great job, O’Toole is awesome. So?! Does this mean Lawrence of Arabia is the 13th greatest movie of all time? No. It’s earned the right to get placed ahead of thousands of movies because it does something unique among virtually all other movies, especially in the genre of Historical Epic: it tells the story of Lawrence while going out of its way to tell anything but that story. Trains are derailed, for the love of peanuts, and yet it’s always only about Lawrence. It might not have surprised you while you watched the movie but it sure shocked the holy living fuck out of me.

I’m not going to give a breakdown of the movie from scene to scene (although I’d be willing to talk any particular that you bring up) because, man, that’s a drag to read. And write. First to write and then to read. I got a perverse thrill out of the last shot, Lawrence obscured by dirty windshield, because it made me realize that the movie hadn’t told us anything about the guy’s childhood, what made him so confident and so easily broken. And, only the second time through, I got to appreciate what Lean was doing when he started the film with Lawrence’s death and funeral. The first shot is Lawrence all alone, on his motorcycle speeding up through winding roads and ultimately crashing/dying when he meets other people. Before he dies, man, does he look happy. And I love a character that looks happy doing something reckless. What’s Lawrence thinking in this scene? I don’t believe it’s anything like relief, really. I think he’s genuinely happy to be where he as at that particular moment. Same as always!

Who’s gonna thrash this movie for setting itself a ridiculously difficult task and accomplishing it in super-awesome entertaining fashion? The story of Lawrence happens before the credits and, because the movie exists, after everything is wrapped up. There was much dramatic license taken with history, with Lawrence and the rest but it doesn’t at all matter. Accurate or not, Lawrence ends up as real as anyone else. Cool.

So I’m a-joinin’ the chorus of praise, obviously. Lawrence of Arabia is everything so many movies try and fail to be. I’d give an x/4 or y/10 but, come on, 1,800 words should suffice. One of the most entertaining, exciting, stirring adjective more adjective more praise movies I’ve ever seen. And I feel like I’m among the last to know. I tried, both times, to watch the movie in two separate 2-hour viewings. Can’t be done. Set aside 227 minutes, that’s the only way. They need to hustle with the Blu-Ray, though. Great that The Expendables is available in glorious 1080 but what about the 13th greatest movie of all time?


Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:46 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
This is why you're amazing. Pure awesomeness. Hell of a write-up. I will now cut and paste quotes to essentially say, "I agree!"

majoraphasia wrote:
“I liked it,” says Lawrence when he confesses the murder. Ah. Weird how you can be watching a movie about an arrogant hero, expecting this movie to be History’s most ambitious puff piece, and find that the movie really is only about Lawrence: The Man Who Would Be Blurry. Lean, more often than not, films Lawrence (Peter O’Toole in his first lead role) from below, in shadow, as a shadow, behind a screen… what kind of historical reach-around does this? So I’ll admit my mistake: I thought Lawrence of Arabia was going to be an epic about a bold (and he is bold) man that valiantly goes to battle for his ideals and wins the war for all. That’s not the movie I watched, punk.


That blurry motif running throughout the film is its single best touch. I don't know if you remember, but I mentioned it when we discussed Le Samourai and compared how Melville uses the tactic a bit in his film. Lean uses it to much greater effect. It isn't exactly subtle, but it isn't forced, either. It's just there for you to pick up on. Brilliant way to characterize Lawrence and naturally bring the themes of the movie in. I've only seen the movie once, around 2 years ago, but those shots have stuck with my more than ones of the desert landscape.

majoraphasia wrote:
Screwing with the question, at least for me, is the fact that, again for me, Lawrence of Arabia was exceptionally entertaining. 227 minutes flew by twice (I was going to double-dip and upgrade my copy to Blu-Ray only to find that the movie, out of all the damn movies they’ve given the treatment, isn’t yet available on Blu-Ray) and both times I was pretty sure that I was watching a small character study rather than a glorious Technicolor epic. Well. I mean, it’s that too. But what makes it special?

So I’m really gonna go out on a limb, take a leap, say that the movie is the greatest biopic of all time. Biopic. Was it a biopic? I guess. What isn’t? No. I dunno. Not a biopic, precisely, but a mega-Shark-and-Gigantic-Octopus huge telling of what it means to be Lawrence. Not Lawrence as a hero, leader of men, fighter of Turks, arrogant jerk but Lawrence as an actual human being. Which is weird, or it was for me, because movies so rarely capture anything essentially human. Yeah yeah yeah they get some details correct, maybe the little things like a person touching the inside of someone’s wrist or looking pleased when he sees his dog walk on its hind legs, but Lawrence of Arabia gives us Lawrence as Lawrence.


For me, it's greatness lies in both of these thoughts. The film is both a small, intimate character study, but also a glorious Technicolor epic. Historical liberties taken aside, it's about a larger than life man. Showing, as you said, Lawrence as Lawrence, has got to be incredibly difficult given the scope of the movie. It's amazing, humbling, and awe-inspiring that Lean was able to accompish both of those goals, keep the movie very entertaining, and stay so focused on what he was trying to accomplish.

majoraphasia wrote:
It’s earned the right to get placed ahead of thousands of movies because it does something unique among virtually all other movies, especially in the genre of Historical Epic: it tells the story of Lawrence while going out of its way to tell anything but that story. Trains are derailed, for the love of peanuts, and yet it’s always only about Lawrence. It might not have surprised you while you watched the movie but it sure shocked the holy living fuck out of me.


Yes! Exactly! We don't know Lawrence any better than he knows himself. The movie can't tell his story because he's a nobody who ended up living an extraordinary life. That's why the reporters at his funeral can't really find out much about him. No one, including himself, really knows who he is. The film is his search for an identity, told on the grandest of scales.

majoraphasia wrote:
So I’m a-joinin’ the chorus of praise, obviously. Lawrence of Arabia is everything so many movies try and fail to be. I’d give an x/4 or y/10 but, come on, 1,800 words should suffice. One of the most entertaining, exciting, stirring adjective more adjective more praise movies I’ve ever seen. And I feel like I’m among the last to know. I tried, both times, to watch the movie in two separate 2-hour viewings. Can’t be done. Set aside 227 minutes, that’s the only way. They need to hustle with the Blu-Ray, though. Great that The Expendables is available in glorious 1080 but what about the 13th greatest movie of all time?


I'm glad you loved it so. Along with Casablanca, it's on the really, really, short list of movies I think are plain impossible to dislike. There's never been a better pure historical epic made, and that statement ignores everything that makes it great. One can't give this movie enough praise, says me.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:43 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
I said that someone was going to get a "much better reply", but...holy crap. Once again I can't offer much except plaudits for the yeoman service you're putting in Mark. The essay was unexpected, which made it doubly delightful.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:39 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
Man, guys. You're too kind. Or not too kind but... I don't know. Thank you!

@ed

The write-up of Metropolis is leaner. It ran at over 4,500 words (8 pages on MS Word for chrissake) before I had the wherewithal to edit it down to less than half that length. I had a long section on the film's history and immediate critical reaction that I removed with the expectation to use that info to spur discussion. I sometimes wonder (but rarely worry) if the epic posts invite more skimming than reading and end up not giving the movie the BUMP intended.

@Pete

The 'blur' is something I looked for because you had mentioned it when we talked Melville. I'm a good, not great, observer of movies and their techniques and I'm not sure I would have noticed had you not said anything. I believe the last shot would have clued me in but... no way to know.

Since we both (others, too) like our visual metaphor I was able to appreciate the second run of Lawrence in a way different than the first. The movie has an endless amount of information in the technical department and, since I was expecting something other than what I got, the bemusement had to wear off before I could see Lean's movie for what (I believe) he intended.

You also bring up something that maybe doesn't get a lot of talk dedicated to it (Berardinelli, in his review, doesn't mention this at all): how did Lean do it? The movie is more than the exceptional script (co-written by Robert Bolt of "A Man For All Seasons" fame); it's the perfect realization of a difficult screenplay. The money, the time, the perfectionism... Lean as bona fide cinematic God.

I'll second the mention of Casablanca in the same sentence as Lawrence. I can't imagine anyone hating the movie... what's to hate? It's got something for everyone! It all came together so brilliantly and with such obvious care/deliberation.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:09 pm
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1441
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
thanks for posting. I look forward to reading 1,000 words on I Spit On Your Grave.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:06 pm
Profile
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
calvero wrote:
thanks for posting. I look forward to reading 1,000 words on I Spit On Your Grave.


If you were being sincere: you're welcome.

If sarcastic: I like editing, just not editing my stuff.

Either way, sincere or sarcastic, I Spit On Your Grave will be looked at next week.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:17 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
majoraphasia wrote:
I sometimes wonder (but rarely worry) if the epic posts invite more skimming than reading and end up not giving the movie the BUMP intended.


I've wondered the same. I think most people prefer to read than to write lengthy posts, which is cool. It gives those who do enjoy writing their thoughts out something of an audience. I don't know about you, but if I write a long post, it's mostly self-serving. I can't get the movie out of my head and have to write about it. If the forum reads and it likes it, great. That's an added benefit. I wrote 1200 words on The Night of the Hunter and didn't get a single reply(everything in that thread afterwards was imported from another thread). I'm not complaining, or begging for comments, just pointing out that I'm glad I wrote it even if no one felt the need to reply to it.

Hmmm, I think you said in 3 paranthesized words what it took me a paragraph to say. Oh well, I'm keeping it.

majoraphasia wrote:
The 'blur' is something I looked for because you had mentioned it when we talked Melville. I'm a good, not great, observer of movies and their techniques and I'm not sure I would have noticed had you not said anything. I believe the last shot would have clued me in but... no way to know.

Since we both (others, too) like our visual metaphor I was able to appreciate the second run of Lawrence in a way different than the first. The movie has an endless amount of information in the technical department and, since I was expecting something other than what I got, the bemusement had to wear off before I could see Lean's movie for what (I believe) he intended.


Well that's just damn cool. I've gotten a shit ton of recommendations and insight from you, so it's good to hear my thoughts helped you enjoy the more a bit more.


Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:18 am
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
PeachyPete wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
I sometimes wonder (but rarely worry) if the epic posts invite more skimming than reading and end up not giving the movie the BUMP intended.


I've wondered the same. I think most people prefer to read than to write lengthy posts, which is cool. It gives those who do enjoy writing their thoughts out something of an audience. I don't know about you, but if I write a long post, it's mostly self-serving. I can't get the movie out of my head and have to write about it. If the forum reads and it likes it, great. That's an added benefit. I wrote 1200 words on The Night of the Hunter and didn't get a single reply(everything in that thread afterwards was imported from another thread). I'm not complaining, or begging for comments, just pointing out that I'm glad I wrote it even if no one felt the need to reply to it.


Definitely. When I type out something lengthy I assume that my audience is myself and ~ 3-4 other people. Just like when I bought cheese sauce and tortilla chips I assumed I'd wanted nachos but then, for whatever reasons, nachos sound horrible right now.

It's kind of hard to relax when there's some "obligation" to write about a movie that isn't particularly interesting to the majority of the forum. Beyond my promising something on Lawrence I, like yourself with NoTH, couldn't have gotten the movie down without writing something about it.


Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:19 pm
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
Sony is almost fraudulent

They sell you the original BluRay with a clip from LofA and years later - nada

I vividly remember visiting the Sony show room in the early weeks of Blu ray and gasping at this movie

It will be out soon was the answer

yup

One of the true greats and Major did it justice - and for that we should all be greatful

Rob


Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:25 am
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
Robert Holloway wrote:
Sony is almost fraudulent

They sell you the original BluRay with a clip from LofA and years later - nada

I vividly remember visiting the Sony show room in the early weeks of Blu ray and gasping at this movie

It will be out soon was the answer

yup

One of the true greats and Major did it justice - and for that we should all be greatful

Rob


It seems to have frustrated everyone. I searched high and low for the Blu Ray only to find that others have complained non-stop for YEARS about this film's unavailability. It might have to do with copyrights or so on but the available DVD versions aren't up to snuff. The best an interested party can hope for is a showing on High Def Movie Network.

Someone (on another forum (that I don't post on)) beat me to the punch by complaining about the 2-disc set ending some 20 minutes before the intermission. Ridiculous. The forced fade is unacceptable.


Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:34 am
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 773
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
Released yesterday on Blu-Ray.

http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Annivers ... B0017O1MIM

_________________
Which are you drinking? The water or the wave?


Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:31 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 185
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
Mark III wrote:


A Blu-Ray I'll have to pick up, I still haven't gotten around to this beast :oops:

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:22 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2021
Post Re: 13 Lawrence of Arabia 1962
JJoshay wrote:
Mark III wrote:


A Blu-Ray I'll have to pick up, I still haven't gotten around to this beast :oops:


Be sure to have cold water at hand.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr