Kodachrome new Netflix Movie

No one asked, but ....

Watched the movie last night. As others noted, it's short on photographic issues and long on personal issues. Very predictable story line, excellent acting by Ed Harris, surprisingly nice acting by E. Olsen, can't decide about Jason Sudeikis.
Movie was shot on Kodak film, and it looks like a real movie :)

At some point in life, you realize that you have "seen everything", and you resign yourself to appreciating / not-appreciating a fresh spin on an old storyline.
 
On wearing a hat in a convertible...one of my California friends mentioned: "You can't even keep a hat on like that in the front seat".
 
Chrome M4-P or M4-2? Just wondering. I thought M4-2, but I've never seen or used either so thought someone here might know better.

Best,
-Tim
 
Don't all the M4-P's have that red Leitz dot on the front vulcanite (or fake leather replacement)? Didn't see that on him camera, maybe I missed it.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Don't all the M4-P's have that red Leitz dot on the front vulcanite (or fake leather replacement)? Didn't see that on him camera, maybe I missed it.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

There's a portion at the end where they show the front of the camera very clearly, and it has M4-P on it. Maybe Harris removed the dot?

Also, was anyone else bothered that the film never described what happened to the camera in the end? I kept thinking, I'll take it if no one else wants it!
 
Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed the movie. I'm a sucker for roadtrip films and tossing in photography and Leica gave extra appeal.

As said above, an old, familiar father/son story and fairly predictable. But I did not anticipate the subject of the four rolls, and found that particularly touching. And I confess to having a minor crush on Elisabeth Olsen.

Photography is at it's best, I feel, when expressing our humanity, whether on a grand, historical scale or in our local, personal lives. The story and the film itself did so nicely.

All in all well worth watching.

John
 
Man this a tough crowd! I really enjoyed the film.... I thought it was shot nicely and colors were really nice... For a change, ugh some of these Hollywood films I just can't stand the crappy color... Music, photography, and road tripping... I mean 3 things I enjoy personally a lot.. all in one film? Come on... Ed Harris was worth the price of admission without question the guy is a master actor... I almost feel he is underrated, no he is.... He is one of the best around these days...
 
Yes, the basic plot is predictable.

Yes, it was produced for general audiences and not for a niche audience of RF photographers or even serious photographers in general.

I enjoyed the film.

As many mentioned Ed Harris' performance is outstanding. Elizabeth Olsen's is also very good.

The film does address issues concerning creativity and artists. There are interesting discussions about the nature/philosophy of photography in general and specifically about the purity of transparency film. None of these points are new, but it was good to see them in a major release film.

I was stunned to see they shot the film with Kodachrome.

I confess I enjoyed seeing Dwyane's Photo.
 
daveleo said:
surprisingly nice acting by E. Olsen,
Click to expand...

FWIW, she was fantastic in "Wind River", (which is a much, much better written movie than this one), so I am beginning to not be surprised any longer that she is a very capable actress. More so than many I could name. JL.
 
Ed Harris best role was as Gene Kranz, 23 years ago in Apollo 13. But even then, if you listen to the ground loop (taped radio conversation between mission control and Aquarius) during the actual events you do not hear even a raised voice. The back and forth sounds like the regular mission chatter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom