651 Badlands

[The Narrator Returns]

DVDBeaver

[Steven H]

Not that I mind criticism but couldn't DVDBeaver have picked a more flattering blurb to kick off their review? It's my opinion, and probably a lot of other people's, that this is one of the greatest American films.

[MichaelB]

DVDBeaver

How odd that Gary opened the page with a strongly negative review. Did he actually read it before cutting and pasting it?

UPDATE: Great minds don't just think alike but also in perfect sync!

[Steven H]

DVDBeaver

How odd that Gary opened the page with a strongly negative review. Did he actually read it before cutting and pasting it?

I should have said "less dismissive" instead of "more flattering," but yeah. Maybe Gary used the quote ironically?

[tojoed]

I don't see anything wrong with his opening. He mentions "Thieves Like Us" and
"Sugarland Express", which, and I shall just say, some of us, regard as far
superior to "Badlands". "Badlands" was hugely overrated in 1973, and, it seems,
remains so today.

[MichaelB]

I don't see anything wrong with his opening. He mentions "Thieves Like Us" and
"Sugarland Express", which, and I shall just say, some of us, regard as far superior to "Badlands".

"He" is Barbara Shulgasser - the Beev's Gary Tooze could have picked any number of other reviews of Badlands to quote from, so I'm curious as to why he chose that one. Especially since Gary's own comments make it clear that he personally rates the film much higher.

[tojoed]

My apologies to Ms Shulgasser.
I like to think that Tooze picked her quote because it's a
succinct summing up of the film, but you're probably right
that he didn't even read it first.

[J M Powell]

How anyone can think the color balance has been "improved" is beyond me. To my eyes the criterion is far too blue -- reds and golds have been cranked out, and greens have been made to "pop" in a way they really shouldn't in this film. This is especially noticeable in the second grab (with the cow), but really it's visible in every comparison. Look at the way the light on the horizon has become muted and silvered in the shot of Sheen holding the chicken. Worst of all, much of the landscape now looks far too lush and monochromatically vibrant green. The de-golding of the greens is especially obvious in the painting Warren Oates is making: that distinctive pea-green color has been pushed almost into lime territory.

As is to be expected, the blu is obviously superior in other respects such as detail, but these colors look so bad that I won't be upgrading.

[MichaelB]

Malick approved the transfer.

[mfunk9786]

Enjoy your lousy single layer DVD edition! \:D/

[FerdinandGriffon]

Malick approved the transfer.

All this assures is that the film looks the way Malick wants it to now, not that it looks the way it did or he wanted it to upon release.

It looks very blue to me, as do several of Criterion's blus, and as is the dominant taste in visual culture right now. Color balance is very delicate in seventies films, more so than in films from the technicolor era or the present, and as such they're very sensitive to even slight meddling. A pity. Would hate to see those new Pialat's ported and treated similarly.

[ryannichols7]

How anyone can think the color balance has been "improved" is beyond me. To my eyes the criterion is far too blue -- reds and golds have been cranked out, and greens have been made to "pop" in a way they really shouldn't in this film. This is especially noticeable in the second grab (with the cow), but really it's visible in every comparison. Look at the way the light on the horizon has become muted and silvered in the shot of Sheen holding the chicken. Worst of all, much of the landscape now looks far too lush and monochromatically vibrant green. The de-golding of the greens is especially obvious in the painting Warren Oates is making: that distinctive pea-green color has been pushed almost into lime territory.

As is to be expected, the blu is obviously superior in other respects such as detail, but these colors look so bad that I won't be upgrading.

you were probably that one guy who was all "Days of Heaven looks better with the golden hue / i'll keep my shit single layer disc!" as well

literally, it amazes me what people have against the director's wishes/intended look. the only time this is ever a crime if it's a Last Emperor style butchering.

[MichaelB]

Malick approved the transfer.

All this assures is that the film looks the way Malick wants it to now, not that it looks the way it did or he wanted it to upon release.

Since I last saw Badlands about twenty years ago in what I recall was a rather battered print, I'm quite happy to live with that.

[Matt]

I no longer trust Gary's screen caps, so I'll reserve judgment until I've seen in on my television in motion. However, it does look rather too blue to me as well. The close-up of Sissy Spacek by the tree looks, in comparison to the DVD captures, quite ugly.

[Drucker]

Bluray.com caps also available

[zedz]

How anyone can think the color balance has been "improved" is beyond me. To my eyes the criterion is far too blue -- reds and golds have been cranked out, and greens have been made to "pop" in a way they really shouldn't in this film. This is especially noticeable in the second grab (with the cow), but really it's visible in every comparison. Look at the way the light on the horizon has become muted and silvered in the shot of Sheen holding the chicken. Worst of all, much of the landscape now looks far too lush and monochromatically vibrant green. The de-golding of the greens is especially obvious in the painting Warren Oates is making: that distinctive pea-green color has been pushed almost into lime territory.

As is to be expected, the blu is obviously superior in other respects such as detail, but these colors look so bad that I won't be upgrading.

You know, it would be handy if you actually provided a basis for your judgement.

Is this based on a photographic memory of seeing the film on its original release in 35mm several times, or on close familiarity with screenings of high quality archival prints, or is it just a case of you seeing it on DVD or TV and getting used to whatever approximate 'colour palette' remained from the source print after several rounds of Chinese Whispers? Or is this a case of you just knowing what Malick intended because you're special that way. That's always fun!

[mallo543]

I'm relieved to hear someone finally mention this. I'm a huge Criterion fan; in fact, I've picked up about 90% of their blu-ray releases. But this has been seriously nagging at me for years now. Senso, Walkabout, Days of Heaven, Playtime, Black Narcissus, now Badlands and Blimp, really almost all the color releases seems to have been bled of their reds and yellows. A sickly purple seems to be the new orange. I'm very sensitive to color, and while I realize these corrections are probably a reaction to DVD releases that were too far at the other end of the spectrum, I suspect they may be seriously overcorrected. Based on the DVD Beaver comparisons, many of my favorite technicolor movies seem to be rendered in the palette of Jean Pierre Melville. One happy exception was Fanny and Alexander, which to my eye was overly cooled in the original Criterion DVD, and then had its warmth restored in the blu-ray. Finally, it may be possible that it's only the captures on DVD Beaver, and not the blu-rays themselves, that are so much cooler than their predecessors. It's true that I own and have watched these blu-rays, but it's too hard for me to make a comparison to previous scans without the side-by-side panels. That's why, even though I get a general sense that things are too blue, I have to resort to DVD Beaver to have that sense confirmed. I've often wondered why this apparent blue-shifting isn't more of an issue for people. Okay, I've said my piece. Pile on.

[ShellOilJunior]

Malick approved the transfer.

That's good enough for me.

Not that it matters if the finished product is of high quality but I'm curious as to why Malick doesn't "sign" his releases like other directors in the collection. By this I mean - why doesn't his signature appear on the blue sticker?

I toss the stickers out. This is just out of curiosity even though the answer I'm likely to receive is: it's Malick.

[knives]

Shell, it's generally assumed that the reason is that Malick likes his privacy.

[cdnchris]

I just got Badlands and I think everyone will be pleased that despite its absence on the sell sheet there is a big fat Warner logo on the back.

[ShellOilJunior]

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

There's only one way to view Lanton Mills. Enroll in the American Film Institute and view it in the AFI library in LA.

[cdnchris]

The Starkweather doc is actually an episode of American Justice (how I miss Bill Kurtis) which they have licenced from Sony. It's cool how all of these relationships they have between studios pay off.

Also, the transfer looks fantastic. I no longer have the DVD (which was compressed to hell, so I don't understand how anyone could pass up the BD) so can't direct compare but I barely noticed the difference. It's cooler in tone but that's about it.

[flyonthewall2983]

I just got Badlands and I think everyone will be pleased that despite its absence on the sell sheet there is a big fat Warner logo on the back.

I won't be pleased until there's a button you can push on it that has Porky Pig going "That's All Folks" when you push it.

[criterion10]

I have to ask, which WB logo plays at the beginning of the Criterion disc? Is it the original, old Saul Bass zoom-in logo? Or, did WB supply Criterion with a master that contains the current, updated logo? I know it may seem rather insignificant, but it really does bother me that WB seems to frequently replace the logos of old films (i.e. Mean Streets, Barry Lyndon, etc.).

[flyonthewall2983]

On the WB DVD, there aren't any logos.