Why The Sound of Music Still Looks Like a Billion Bucks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video, we explore why The Sound of Music still looks visually stunning decades after its release.
From the breathtaking 70mm Todd-AO cinematography to the use of natural lighting and real Austrian locations, we break down the film’s technical brilliance.
Discover how Ted McCord’s camera movements and lighting choices elevated the film's emotional storytelling, and how the transition from light, joyful scenes to darker, tension-filled moments helped make this classic an enduring masterpiece. Get ready for a deep dive into what keeps The Sound of Music looking like a billion bucks!
Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/f...
Something in our collective humanity peaked with this film. It was and always has been magnificent.
our collective humanity peaked with the Sound of Music?? lol 🤣🤣🤣your sarcasm is delicious!!
"Imagine you are watching The Sound of Music on a big cinema screen in 1965." I don't have to imagine it, I did. Even better, I was attending a Catholic elementary school at the time. The nuns loved the movie, and they took us on a field trip to see it when it first came out.
That's so neat to hear they loved the movie!
@@good1day726 I think, deep down, they all wanted to be Maria.
@@stflaw Ha! I don't blame them!
Photographed on Eastman's 50T with Bell & Howell 2709, Mitchell BFC, & the Modern Cinema Systems MCS-70 cameras by Ted D. McCord, the precision that went into these scenes had no other choice but to be visually priceless.
There is so much to praise about Sound of Music, the pinnacle of movie musicals (almost, but not quite, rivaled by the original West Side Story). But this video specifically is easily one of the best TH-cam videos I've ever seen. Brief but extremely informative, it celebrates everything that went into the filming of the movie that made it a cinematic masterpiece. I wish more videos were like this. I don't mind longer videos, but so often they feel at least partially stuffed with filler and often could benefit from some major editing. This video did exactly what the title promised in a way that makes me want to watch Sound of Music immediately for the fifteenth time? The twentieth?
Wonderful job and much appreciated!!
We saw this with the family a few months ago. I was shocked at how beautiful this film really is-visually, musically and thematically. Yes, I had seen it many times as a child, but I had a fresh appreciation for just how exceptionally good this film is.
Why am I so early?
This is one of the greatest movies ever made.
Thank you for teaching me what I didn’t know about a film I’ve watched at least a dozen times.
You’re welcome!
I was taken by my great Aunt, against my wishes I might add, to see this in the old Capitol cinema in Cardiff when I was about 13 years old. I wanted to go to see The Guns of Navarone instead but Auntie Nancy was paying so to The Capitol we went. We sat upstairs in the Circle and the screen looked vast. Needless to say the impact of this film was huge too - aurally, musically and visually. It played at the Capitol for 2 years and whenever I went to stay with my Aunt and Uncle part of the treat was to go into Cardiff and see this again. That happened 3 or 4 times if I remember correctly. On TV it's ok but on the big screen it blows your socks off !
Very nice
I don't know if people today know that there weren't multiplexes then. A movie would play at one theater for months sometimes if it was a hit. Sound of Music played for years in many cities. It was a massive hit.
Now I wish I could see it in the cinema!!!
I’ve never seen this movie. Now I’m looking forward to it!
it is a bit weird that this really famous film is not known by people in Austria or Germany.
Austrians don't particularly like this film. And in Salzburg they are more interested in their Mozart, than the tourists enquiring on Sound of Music.
@@juleswombat5309 And yet 80% of their annual GDP is because of tourists taking The Sound of Music tour.
@@cieranthane1 No. It’s 2.8% of their GDP. Google it
Thanks for a stunning reveal. What a masterpiece of film making craft, and your narrative was a wonderful guide. (Don't worry about the Orks. Virtuecrats who damn us for mistakes that don't matter are quickly revealed as dicks. Usually they're not old enough to have noticed that life is about making mistakes so we can learn from them and be happy.)
You’re welcome!
That is a beautiful looking movie
Fun fact: when they flee over the alps, in real life they would have ended in Germany. 😂
In real life they would have ended up in Bertesgarden... Hitler's home.
Van Tropp family
Wonderful video.
I'm not sure that Eastman was a technical advancement over three strip Technicolor. With very few exceptions, most movies shot on Eastman were basically just muddy brown with some faint cyan for blue, until the late 1970s. Not to mention that all pre 1982 Eastman prints have faded to red. I also didn't understand why the image of the 70mm print is smaller than that of the 65mm camera neg. If it's because of the projector gate, it would be considered in the viewfinder. If it's an optical reduction, it would defeat everything. I always thought that the 65mm camera frame is 100% the same as that of the 70mm print.
Yes, using Eastman dye coupler technology to produce positive release prints often resulted in an array of colors you suggest. But let's not forget with the introduction of Eastman 5247 color Monopack Negative film in 1950, filmmakers were freed-up from relying on the cumbersome Technicolor Three-Strip Camera - which quickly vanished - except for effects work, and in some cases, converted for horizontal, 8-perf use for VistaVision photography. In many ways, the high point for Technicolor was referred to as Technicolor System #5, which utilized the Eastman Monopack Color Negative stock for shooting, and then turned over to Technicolor Labs to allow for the tried-and-true (if not a bit soft) *Dye-Transfer* imbibition printing process, producing stellar colors and release prints [essentially] free of fading.
As to your question about the "reduced size (image) width" of the 70mm release print, that's needed in order to accommodate two of the six magnetic soundtracks, which are located *inside* the perforations.
Eastmancolor is sharper than a Technicolor dye transfer print.
Projector apertures are always slightly smaller than camera apertures for the same format to ensure a clean sharp edge to the image. Projector aperture plates are normally supplied undersize and custom cut for each projector in each theatre to correct for any distortion of the image due to keystoning etc., so you may be seeing slightly less than even the theoretical projector aperture. Then there is the screen masking to consider.
Old cinemas typically had projection rooms located high up, with a steep projection rake. This caused serious distortion when films were projected onto wide curved screens. In some cases new projection rooms were constructed lower down, as was done at the Dominion Tottenham Court Road in London for example, and sometimes special ‘rectified’ prints were made with a distorted image to correct for the distortion caused during projection. The Odeon Leicester Square still has its high projection room with a projection rake of I think from memory 18 degrees, and distortion can clearly be seen, particularly during scrolling credits.
The difference in frame size between 70 and 65 is that between the perforation and the picture a magnetic sound stripe was added.
Go to the movie theater and spend money. Keep movie theaters alive.
All good, but (4:00) a 'narrow aperture' does not mean open aperture, it's quite opposite, so I guess what you were meant to say was 'for emotional moments they actually did not use a narrow aperture, but more open aperture' ;)
You seem to think this guy knows about cameras
💙💙💙💙💙
Nice try wolfcrow, but your 'Cinema out of one hole' misquote indicates a real lack of quality research into the history of large format cinema. That really was a very basic cock-up. 🙄
This film is so good it made WW2 worth it
The name is VON TRAPP - Jeez have you even seen the movie?!
He does also get it right several times, as well as wrong.
How about Alien and Aliens? They look like a billion dollars
But that's mainly done in black, much easier to get away with.
They used shiddy film stock
What looks bad are the interiors, the lighting is industrial and generic.
If you think the sound of music looks great, you need to run to your nearest optometrist.
Thank you, Mr. Crankpants! Some of us disagree!
As someone who was old enough, and lucky enough, to see a theatrical reprint on the big screen in the 1980s, the film left a huge impression on me. It was visually stunning and 7 year old me felt completely immersed. The Sound of Music was my gateway into classic films and began my love of musicals.
I remember as a 7 year old traveling to Nova Scotia for a few weeks to visit my cousins. First time on a plane, first time travelling anywhere more than 100 miles from home. We were free range kids in those days, pushed out the door in the morning and we would just run around and explore. There was a movie theater playing "Sound of Music" and in a week we must have watched it 3 or 4 times. If it wasn't the first movie I had seen in a theater, it certainly was close to being the first. I remember the beauty of the movie and it was so big, the screen. Those were good times, more gentle times and the Sound of Music always reminds me of those days.
TSOM had its world premiere at New York's Rivoli theater on Broadway. As prestigeous a film theater as any in the world. Todd had designed the curved screen in this theater for his premiere film in Todd AO Oklahoma! which was then followed by his Todd AO Around the World in 80 Days so this was indeed a Todd AO curved screen and Music was presented in Todd AO here.
I understand you were discussing the film purely from a visual perspective but the film primarily owes its success to the Rodgers and Hammerstein(who you never once mentioned) score as arranged by Irwin Kostel in which the visual aspects beautifully work as a supporting player.
A Wise masterwork.
Thank you for reminding us what a masterpiece The Sound of Music is. Seeing all these moments reminds me that I haven't seen it in a long time. I will have to track it down to watch it again soon. I hope it sees a theatrical re-release in the theaters one day.
You’re welcome!
I watch it just about every year. Probably have seen it over 40 times. Enjoy it every time😌
Perhaps next year (2025) for the 60th Anniversary Disney will rerelease it in theaters.
Thank you for looking at this film through an entirely different lens, figuratively speaking.
Couldn’t have said it better.😊
You’re welcome!
“I’m sorry, Captain- but I do not know YOUR whistle.”
this "series" is great. keep it up
Thank you!
Man, this makes me want to watch The Sound of Music for the thirteenth time. Thank you for bringing exposure to this classic. Everyone deserves to tear up when Christopher Plummer sings Eidelweiss. 💗
You’re welcome!
In the movie Christopher Plummer's voice was replaced by that of Bill Lee. Plummer's Edelweiss tracks are available on TSOM DVD collections -- and (probably) TH-cam.
@@roxiesdad9804 🤯
Or be awed when he cuts in to dance. Stunning.
No. Michael Todd did not say that Todd-AO - the "AO" stands for American Optical - was "cinema out of one hole". He said it was "CINERAMA out of one hole". He and his partners developed it to compete with Cinerama, which famously was shot on three strips of film and required three projectors to show it in special theaters. Todd wanted something much easier to film and project - and much cheaper. It used 65 mm film, just like standard 70mm, but filmed at 30 fps instead of 24.
Absolutely correct. Cinerama -- with jaw dropping visuals -- was expensive to produce, difficult to film. Todd wanted a process that would simulate Cinerama without the cost or inconvenience (of filming).
Thank You for clearing this up. I watched this clip 5 times trying to clearly hear what he was explaining, but it still sounded incorrect to me. Your explanation makes much more sense i.e, 65mm original and 65mm prints with 70mm aspect ratio projected at 30fps. However, with the theaters with only 35mm projection equipment at 24fps, was the frame rate somehow adjusted on the print or were the 35mm prints projected at 30 fps? Just curious?
@@timemachineguy1 Only the first two Todd-AO productions _(Oklahoma!_ and _Around the World in 80 Days)_ were shot at 30fps. To allow for compatibility when shown at non-Roadshow engagements, "at popular prices", these films were shot simultaneously at 24fps using 35mm cameras equipped with CinemaScope lenses. The balance of Todd-AO productions were shot at the traditional speed of 24fps.
Yeah I like his videos but sometimes it’s just a wall of words and lacks clarity. This one almost sounded non-sensical.
@@roxiesdad9804
Not to mention the exhibit was hard as heck as well. With 3 projectors running their own third of the image in their own projection rooms at 26 fps 6 perf. With a fourth reel for the sound. And all that needing to stay perfectly in sync for the 3 hour runtimes. With a fourth backup projector standing by with its own reel to cover any disruptions or hiccups.
It was truly, a very silly contraption that only lasted a few years, on a few locations. When it was reduced down to a single projector running a single strip of film while retaining enough clarity and still having multichannel surround sound... It's no wonder the powers that be gave up on the format completely.
I say that with no real disdain to the format itself and its contributions in being the IMAX of its day. Mostly used for glorified travelogues and 2 full narrative films. I have a curious fascination with the format. As it was so short lived, so few titles produced. I aim to get ALL of the films done for the format on bluray. It's a futile endeavour. Most of the films are more timecapsules than actually fun to watch. But it is doable (if someone actually finally releases the Brothers Grimm movie).
I watched it for years in full screen vhs and when I finally saw it on DVD widescreen my god, just saw it in 4K recently and it’s just flawless
So cool! Now I DEF need to watch it
I recently got to see this classic in a theater with a large screen and lounge seats. I never thought that viewing this movie on a TV screen would give it justice. I'm glad I waited. The movie was projected on DCP format and actually didn't look bad. Unfortunately DCP's don't include the stereo tracks, do only got the sound from the theater's front speakers. The screen luckily was big enough that a true 70mm print could have been projected on it. Still holding my breath for a 70mm print to show st the Loft Theatre in Tucson, where I got to see another classic West Side Story in 70mm.
First time saw it during my grade school days in Theater at wide screen i already love it every time it return in theater still watching it, now I'm 69 last saw it was in the 80's later on in DVD.Thank you for sharing this video what a brilliant movie! was a masterpiece also timeless.
You’re welcome!
A wider aperture (not narrower) results in shallow depth-of-field.
i saw SOM in 196?? in a movie theatre with wide curved screen. I also saw most wide spcreen and Cinerama films too in theatres, and now, IMAX is as good, except the aspect ratio, but the sound systems of modern theatres is without peer. i can't be sure if what makes imax more vibrant is the post processing or digital films, its beyond me but remastered digital versions of 'wide screen' film movies is fairly faithful to the movie experience as can be at home, with a 80' HDTV.
I was actually speaking about IMAX film projected on large flat screens. SOM was released in a few curved screens.
I watched this movie a year ago and was blown away by the visuals and story, I relate to Maria's character, then was later inspired by her
.....church wedding for me was one of highlights...soo beautiful and solemn with powerful music
The effort that went into the opening “Hills are Alive” shot was incredible - the helicopter and camera had to arrive and then descend in near autorotation with Julie Andrews running up at exactly the right time - the music for synch being blasted from speakers behind the background trees.
A terrific video essay, and a much needed corrective for this important movie which is generally over praised by its fans and unfairly dismissed by its detractors. Looking at it from a craftsmanship perspective makes me appreciate it all the more. Thank you!
My mum took me to see this, at the biggest cinema in Manchester, when it came out. I was 11. I remember being very impressed by its look. I am sure it gave me my love of motion pictures.
One of the best! Julie should have won another Oscar 💯♥️🌟
Great video and I'll add one correction. At the time of its release I don't know of any theaters that had adopted the Todd AO screen with the deep curve, maybe none ever did. However, there were plenty of cinemas with curved screens in the United States. Both Cinemascope and Cinerama had curved screens. Many of those theaters showed The Sound of Music either in 70mm or in Cinemascope 2.35.
I did read a few cinemas did show the film on curved screens. I think in Atlanta, if memory serves right. But by then the curved screen idea was already a lost cause.
@@wolfcrow Hi. What I meant was that even though Cinerama never took off, there were a lot of Cinerama theaters built all over the country with the curved screen that went with that format. Those theaters operated well into the '80s and '90s and showed many 70mm films. In L.A. for example The Sound of Music and 2001 could be seen at the Cineramadome on a highly curved screen.
But why no 4k UHD version? I know they did an 8k scan, but the only available format is Blu-ray. Some of the worst movies ever made have been released in 4k, but not this film? It’s crazy.
What a wonderful effort these older movies were. Now I guess mostly its sat in front of a computer.
Of course, you have to take into consideration what Disney was doing in live-action at the time, which was still using standard film stock, cartoony stock sounds, whimsical music (sometimes stifling even Jerry Goldsmith from doing an epic score), and using '60s special effects for big backgrounds instead of shooting on-location, and the special effects were as obvious as ever. This was perfectly fine in the '60s, but as the '70s arrived, they kept on doing it with little effort, which is why a lot of Disney's live-action film from the '70s are easily mistaken for '60s films. It made them feel dated on arrival instead of "timeless". Disney didn't improve their film tech until 1982, the year of Tron, and didn't try to do better until about 1977.
That being said, The Sound of Music is a vast improvement over what Disney was doing at the time.
Your introduction exactly describes my experience. My mom took me to see the Sound of Music when I was little and was immediately mesmerized by the opening sequence. Years later my brother asked me if I wanted to go see Star Wars. As many may remember in the beginning no one heard of the movie. I didn’t know what it was. “Is it scary?” I asked my brighter. We went and sat in the theater. When it opened with the huge space ship soaring overhead I was equally amazed. I have never seen a movie since then that has equaled those two opening sequences. Amazing films!
Something not said here because it’s a technical appreciation of a director’s and crew’s approach to film-making - is that all Rodgers and Hammerstein’s ‘big 5’ musicals transferred from stage to screen magnificently to be gorgeous films and huge commercial successes (long term over decades) - Oklahoma!, Carousel, The King and I, South Pacific and The Sound of Music. The original State Fair, a film with songs rather than a stage musical, and Flower Drum Song, also make movies beautiful to look at. It’s interesting to me that these transfers from one medium to another are so wonderful - so too was West Side Story, Cabaret and Chicago, but so often stage musicals just don’t transfer well, they flop or they have to be so altered that they are almost unrecognisable as the original show. There’s something about each Rodgers and Hammerstein show which, despite being specific local stories, that makes them universal and worthy of the full cinematic treatment with which they were endowed.
Still surprised this film hasn't been given the 4k bluray treatment yet.
man, i wish you guys would come up with a new strategy for creation - as it is we have a word-heavy ton of copy being voiced by a bore (or an AI drone) which has no actual cinematic relationship with the scenes on the film - and for crying out loud, how can you
talk about THE SOUND OF MUSIC and not have any MUSIC? With a little more care this show could be something really fine. When Julie Andrews keeps running around, with her mouth opening and closing, but NO SOUND coming my way, I am afraid I must rename this show WHO CARES WHAT THE SOUND OF MUSIC LOOKS LIKE IF THERE IS NO MUSIC?
I was a projectionist in de seventies and eighties and showed this film many times on 70mm. Our theater had a curved screen, 12 meter (40 feet) wide and about 6 meter (20 feet) high. From a technical perspective, this was the most beautiful film to work with, while the music and the story itself is one of my guilty pleasures! The last time that we would perform this film, the distributor wanted to send a 35mm optical copy, but I would not have it! They send me a 70mm copy that they deemed not presentable, but I still wanted to see it first. As it happened, it was disassembled badly, with reels in the wrong sequence and the music intro removed. I reassembled the film, added the musical intro's and played it for myself. It was completely presentable and so we showed this copy. When I shipped it back, it was the last time that I saw it in 70mm. Now I have the HD version, but it isn't nearly as good. I got very nostalgic, seeing this item!
When I was a kid, in the 1960's, my parents took the family and my grand parents to the Eglington Theatre in Toronto to see this film. I remember going to this day. I've never been a musical movie fan, but this musical film makes it to my favourites list!
Robert Wise was a standout in cinema, including doing movies like Andromeda Strain & The Haunting. He, a Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock, etc, (& actors, actresses, singers, celebrities of the past) reflect a time & culture that's increasingly DOA in today's world. Current social trends & politics (& post-1990's technology, which makes things smaller, not larger, than real life) mean you really can't go home again.
I was taken to the theatre to see this movie in 1968, I was 8 years old, it was at a grand theatre in the city of Aberdeen in Scotland, called " Her Majesty's Theatre". An ornate structure built in 1906 and seating for 1400 people. It is something that has etched in my memory, the sheer spectacle of watching it on a huge screen, I remember it being like a 3D image, I'm assuming it was a 70mm presentation, I felt totally transported to another world, and of course being a child myself at the time I totally related to the children in the movie.
"Imagine you are watching 'The Sound of Music' on a big cinema screen in 1965." I don't have to imagine it. I was there. I saw TSOM in February of 1966 (I was 6 at the time) in its original road show engagement; reserved seats, intermission, exit music. This was not my first time going to the movies but it was the first time we all went as a family in our Sunday best. I recall my Father getting seats not too close to the screen so we could take in the entire picture without moving our heads and I bear witness that it looked (and sounded) like a billion. One of my happiest childhood memories.
20th Century Fox bet everything on the success of this film. The studio, having suffered through a number of big budget blockbuster flops, was pretty much bankrupt and needed a film that could be made relatively cheaply, whilst making a decent box office return. Not even they realised how successful The Sound of Music would be.
The technical brilliance almost makes up for the terminally schmaltzy story line.
I had seen it originally in the early 70s in the theater, and then years later I saw the 70mm print projected as a sing-along. What an incredible visual experience: that initial aerial sequence holds up amazingly well.
I saw this movie for the first time recently and it was a yukky experience though visually impressive.
Our neighbor who was married to an Austrian lady was going to pay for our parents and other's he knew to go to see this movie. I don't know why my parents didn't go. I do remember seeing it on TV when it was first shown when I was a child. I saw it a few times after that. It's been awhile though. Time to see it again.
I am glad they don't remake a perfect movie to make garbage....and switch the movie to some woke stuff.
Because it's shot on the most beautiful film stock you could ever get your hands on with some of the finest lenses ever created. It doesn't need a lot more analysis than that.
It does still look so stunning. This and Lawrence of Arabia were the pinnacle of real film beauty of the 1960s.
Another GREAT breakdown
It can't be just a coincidence that the same man who directed The Sound of Music also directed The Body Snatcher.
I was in my early teens when I was persuaded to see this film somewhat against my own feelings and couldn’t believe how much I enjoyed it. Yes the photography and projection on to a huge screen was awesome even after I had already experienced Cinerama. The 60’s was the last decade of going to movie theatres to see spectacular productions in large auditoriums unlike today’s boring boxes. So lucky to have experienced the end of the golden age.
.......this movie was shown for a straight seven months daily without stop in Cebu City during my childhood
Of all the great movie musicals, this and West Side Story, left a lasting impression. One, of beauty and elegance. The other gritty and earthy. For me, I think you can always spot movies that were made digitally, as opposed to actual film.
You can see the remastered blu -ray version and it looks great but nothing compares with seeing it on the big screen in a cinema. For years it used to be shown at The Prince Charles Cinema off London's Leicester Square on a regular basis. Some more extreme fans would dress up as nuns to 'sing-a-long'! Not sure if they still put it on their schedule. Whatever, that aerial shot is still stunning. Director Robert Wise did a similar shot a few years before over New York City at the beginning of West Side Story.
I remember seeing this when it first came out on what we then called the big screen. Because the film longer at the time then normal movies, there was actually an intermission.
I am 70 and to day I can still remember and picture time I saw the movie. It's still my favorite movie today. I was 11 years old at the time.
It still doesn't quite compare to 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'.
Great video, thanks! No nonsense and lots of interesting info. Well done 👍
I first heard the soundtrack played countless times by my mom, then it was re-released in '73 in theaters and I was 10. What a privilege to get to see it on the big screen though it came out when I was 2 and I wouldn't have seen it yet. My daughter just saw it for the first time recently and loved it. It's just timeless, great cinema.
I hated musicals as a kid and I hate now, but I liked Sound of Music and was captivated by the visuals. I admired it as a moving painting.
Why? Because it's a beautiful movie with a beautiful script and songs and, last but not least, because it's not all passed! 😁
Today they would add a blue filter and make all the backgrounds CGI
Saw the original theatrical release in the 1960s. The craftsmanship on this film is incredible.
There is no way the costumes - especially in the hall scene - are accurate for the late 30s.
There used to be a multiplex here that had a huge theater here that was built in the early 1970s, built for the 70mm films and such -- it had a huge screen and lots of speakers. Back about 30 years ago, they had a series of the 70mm films there -- Ben-Hur, Ten Commandments, the first Star Trek film, and The Sound of Music, among others. I saw Ben-Hur and this one at that festival, and it was an experience you can't duplicate, even with a home theater.
I first saw this film when I was 9 years old. It ran in the same theatre for over a year. I am now just about 71 and have watched The Sound of Music at least once a year since it was first broadcast on TV and personally owned several copies over the years as technologies have changed. I have travelled to Salzburg and visited many of the locations filmed for the movie and been thrilled to see it is all so real and relatively unchanged. It is definitely my favourite film and for me the very best filmed musical based on a Rogers and Hammertstein show. The cinematography, the songs the drama the comedy the humanity the darkness and the light all blend together in the perfect story of the struggles and dangers so many people have faced and still face today and yet there is still love and hope. This film has always given me so much - especially hope. I hope someone out there who has never seen it, gets that opportunity soon.
Hey I actually did see the first run of Sound of Music on the big screen in a movie palace, twice (I was 5). I saw it several more times in the theater growing up. Unforgettable. Also, Star Wars. I saw that on the big screen so many times I fell asleep the last time.
Magnifcent review and explanation. Brings tears to my eyes in how you admire these films. It puts down in words why it is marvelous, better than I could have described. Thanks a lot!
adding a new lens enhancer the continuum transfunctioner pulled it off
My mum worked at a cinema when I was young and I got in for free. I saw this movie at least 10 times.
My dad was three and said this was the first movie he ever saw in the theater.
Because people of REAL TALENT made it.
Pity narrator keeps saying Van Tropp instead of Von Trapp!
That intro of Maria, certainly made an impression on me as a kid.
All that and why can we not get a 4K copy anywhere? Anyone???
Thanks for this wonderful analysis
Wow, that was really good. Thanks.
Great analysis! Thank you.
Classic in all aspects!👍
You can't use the samw title again and again, man! It only works for Lawrence of Arabia
Haha
Never realized how unsteady helicopter shots used to be 😉