651 Badlands

[Matt]

Badlands



Badlands announced the arrival of a major talent: Terrence Malick. His impressionistic take on the notorious Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate killing spree of the late 1950s uses a serial-killer narrative as a springboard for an oblique teenage romance, lovingly and idiosyncratically enacted by Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. The film also introduced many of the elements that would earn Malick his passionate following: the enigmatic approach to narrative and character, the unusual use of voice-over, the juxtaposition of human violence with natural beauty, the poetic investigation of American dreams and nightmares. This debut has spawned countless imitations, but none have equaled its strange sublimity.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED SPECIAL EDITION:

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition
• Making “Badlands,” a new documentary featuring actors Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek and production designer Jack Fisk
• New interview with editor Billy Weber about director Terrence Malick’s unique approach to editing
• New interview with producer Edward Pressman
• “Charles Starkweather,” a 1993 episode of the television series Great Crimes and Trials, about the real-life story on which the film was loosely based
• Trailer
• PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by filmmaker Michael Almereyda

[Forrest Taft]

I was confident they'd include Lanton Mills as an extra. Oh well...

[criterion10]

This seems pretty light in terms of special features, no? Still should be a great release, very excited about this one.

[matrixschmatrix]

Hopefully the docu will be nice and substantial. Seems like a lost opportunity for a visual essay or two, though.

[Jeff]

I was confident they'd include Lanton Mills as an extra. Oh well...

Malick would never allow it.

[Finch]

Considering that Malick's never done commentaries before and is unlikely to do so in the future, I think this looks like a pretty solid lineup of extras. The film is the main attraction anyway and the fact that Warner let it go makes me hope for McCabe and Mrs Miller, and The Big Red One some day.

[criterion10]

Considering that Malick's never done commentaries before and is unlikely to do so in the future, I think this looks like a pretty solid lineup of extras. The film is the main attraction anyway and the fact that Warner let it go makes me hope for McCabe and Mrs Miller, and The Big Red One some day.

It does seem pretty surreal seeing a WB film in the collection, especially Badlands considering how long people have been requesting it for. Looks as though there's still hope for The Devils *crosses fingers*

[PfR73]

Would be nice if Criterion would include the "Absence of Malick" featurette from the R2 releases.

[flyonthewall2983]

New special feature added

“Charles Starkweather,” a 1993 episode of the television series Great Crimes and Trials, about the real-life story on which the film was loosely based

Maybe we'll see a few more pop until it's release?

[AMalickLensFlare]

Looking at the Criterion page, it says the aspect ratio is 1.78:1. Been a long while since I've watched my DVD copy, but I'm pretty sure it's full-frame 4:3 or something close to it. Anyone know what the original theatrical aspect ratio was? I'm hoping this is a return to what it was and not a cropped-for-widescreen-TVs change in format.

[Roger Ryan]

Looking at the Criterion page, it says the aspect ratio is 1.78:1. Been a long while since I've watched my DVD copy, but I'm pretty sure it's full-frame 4:3 or something close to it. Anyone know what the original theatrical aspect ratio was? I'm hoping this is a return to what it was and not a cropped-for-widescreen-TVs change in format.

IMDb lists the original aspect ratio as 1.85:1 which is exactly what one would expect from a feature released by a major studio in 1973 (once you get past the late 50s, its difficult to find major studio releases intended to be seen in anything but a widescreen format). 1.78:1 might be a typo or Malick may have wanted the frame to be opened up a bit for this release. If a full-frame version was released in the past, it was probably to accommodate 4:3 TV screens and did not reflect how the film was originally screened.

[med]

The old Warner Bros. DVD was cropped. The theatrical print of Badlands I saw earlier this year was in 1.85:1. I'm assuming Malick approved this new transfer, and chose to have it presented in 1.78:1, much like he did with Criterion's Days of Heaven release.

[tojoed]

The UK Warner DVD is 1:1.85.

[solaris72]

My R1 Warner DVD is also 1.85:1 (as seen in DVDBeaver.) Was there perhaps a flipper disc released back in the day with both versions?

[Matt]

There's only ever been the one US release.

[solaris72]

My version is a keepcase w/ a single-sided disc, DVDEmpire has the rear cover art for the snapcase edition, which does list both widescreen and "standard" versions at the bottom.

[Matt]

Well I'll be damned. The snapper case version is a flipper. One side 1.33: 1 (open matte), the other 1.77:1 (matted).





Sorry for the misinformation.

[AMalickLensFlare]

Hmm, I have the one-sided Warner DVD and there's quite a bit of black on the left and right sides of the screen, so it's definitely not playing in 1.85:1. This is what it looks like on my TV (same amount of black on the right side too):

http://i47.tinypic.com/358e6nt.jpg

The DVD case says it is "presented in a 'matted' widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition." Maybe I'm not understanding the whole "matted" thing in this particular case. Is anyone else seeing it on their screen the way I am? Saying the DVD is 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 is throwing me off. My apologies if I'm confusing anyone.

[Feego]

It appears that a couple of years ago, Warners re-issued "Badlands" with the same cover art but as a single-sided disc with only the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. The packaging mistakenly lists the widescreen version, and reviews on Amazon were pretty irate.

[Thomas Dukenfield]

Well I'll be damned. The snapper case version is a flipper. One side 1.33: 1 (open matte), the other 1.77:1 (matted).

I have the flipper and checked it and, for the record, it is anamorphic 1.85:1 on one side and not 1:77:1.

[AMalickLensFlare]

It appears that a couple of years ago, Warners re-issued "Badlands" with the same cover art but as a single-sided disc with only the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. The packaging mistakenly lists the widescreen version, and reviews on Amazon were pretty irate.

Ah, I see. Now it all makes sense. Thanks for that link, too. I'm surprised a big studio like Warner would make a mistake like this. The Criterion disc can't come soon enough.

[Matt]

Well I'll be damned. The snapper case version is a flipper. One side 1.33: 1 (open matte), the other 1.77:1 (matted).

I have the flipper and checked it and, for the record, it is anamorphic 1.85:1 on one side and not 1:77:1.

Maybe that's what the case says or how it appears on an overscanned TV, but the actual pixels are in a 1.77:1 ratio.

[Thomas Dukenfield]

Well I'll be damned. The snapper case version is a flipper. One side 1.33: 1 (open matte), the other 1.77:1 (matted).

I have the flipper and checked it and, for the record, it is anamorphic 1.85:1 on one side and not 1:77:1.

Maybe that's what the case says or how it appears on an overscanned TV, but the actual pixels are in a 1.77:1 ratio.

Sorry, you're right. I physically measured a still in VLC without realizing that it was cropping the image. It doesn't list the ratio on the case, but most sources (including DVDBeaver) list it as 1.85:1, so I now officially confirm your findings.

[flyonthewall2983]

I just want to say, I'm fucking stoked for this.

[Minkin]

Bluray.com