criterionforum.org

Unless its a pricing error, the DVDs for this and the Oshima title are both $29.99 vs. $39.99 for the Blu.

I'm pretty surprised Malick approved the outtakes! Hopefully there's a lot of them so we can see at least part of what the 5-hour cut would've looked like.

Thrilled there's a commentary track as well. Wow.

Very pleased to see this coming out sooner than originally rumoured. On paper, they really went to town on the extras. Could be one of their best 2010 discs.

I hate to nitpick, but it says "Outtakes", not "deleted scenes". Outtakes are generally 'takes' of when an actor is doing a serious scene and he accidentally bursts into laughter for example. While I am sure these 'outtakes' are indeed really deleted scenes, I wish Criterion would stay consistent with industry jargon. This is assuming of course that they are not actually 'outtakes'.

When they say Outtakes, they could also mean that they're deleted bits of footage, but not complete deleted scenes. Not that every DVD deleted scene is actually a whole scene, but maybe you see my meaning. I'm hoping, more for cuisoity's sake than anything else, that we'll get glimpses of all of the name actors who were left on the cutting room floor ... I'm looking at you, Bill Pullman.

willoneill wrote:When they say Outtakes, they could also mean that they're deleted bits of footage, but not complete deleted scenes. Not that every DVD deleted scene is actually a whole scene, but maybe you see my meaning. I'm hoping, more for cuisoity's sake than anything else, that we'll get glimpses of all of the name actors who were left on the cutting room floor ... I'm looking at you, Bill Pullman.

I get what you are saying, but I would tend to push those over to the 'deleted scenes' camp. A good example of what you are describing can be found on the DVD/BD of Scorsese's Casino.

The aspect raio has been corrected - now listed at 2.35:1.

aox wrote:I hate to nitpick, but it says "Outtakes", not "deleted scenes". Outtakes are generally 'takes' of when an actor is doing a serious scene and he accidentally bursts into laughter for example. While I am sure these 'outtakes' are indeed really deleted scenes, I wish Criterion would stay consistent with industry jargon. This is assuming of course that they are not actually 'outtakes'.

I remember reading something about Penn and Harrelson farting around - literally - in the grass while Malick entreated them to grow up and get with the picture. Perhaps the "outtakes" is a flatulence reel? I know George Clooney likes to let one go now and then on set, what with all the Taco Bell he eats. The Greatest Generation!

The audition footage in particular is of particular interest to me.

I'm particularly inclined to agree with the particulars of your...particles.

This internet myth of a 5 hour cut* is easily the most annoying whine on the internet this week.

*disregarding a 'work print'.

What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?

oldsheperd wrote:What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?

I believe he's the character with Caviezel's on the beach with the natives and playing with the children in the beginning.

I have never been able to figure out why Tom Jane didn't become a star.

Tom Hagen wrote:I have never been able to figure out why Tom Jane didn't become a star.

PT Anderson says in the commentary how impressed he'd been with him in Boogie Nights, and thought he would be one of the major breakout actors- from that goddamn cast, too.

I wonder if that shitty Punisher movie really hurt him.

I always liked his small bit in Arrested Development, and wish he had been in more episodes. "I'm Tom Jane." But yeah, I feel that a few bad movie choices really hurt him.

I'd say he's doing ok now with Hung.

I really, really hope we at least get to see some of what Mickey Rourke got to play

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

oldsheperd wrote:What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?

I believe he's the character with Caviezel's on the beach with the natives and playing with the children in the beginning.

And/or the fellow waiting in the field with an injury while Witt walks up ("I'd'a had you dead to rights")?

[edit/addendum] Actually I think they're two separate actors/characters. I think Jane is the fellow I mentioned. Anyone feel free to correct me.

This gives me the pleasant task of having to watch the film again, so I'll see if you're right.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

oldsheperd wrote:What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?

I believe he's the character with Caviezel's on the beach with the natives and playing with the children in the beginning.

Nope, the guy with Caviezel in the beginning is actually Will Wallace, the son of Malick´s current wife. He also appears in The New World and The Tree of Life. Tom Jane plays the wounded guy Caviezel runs in to when he´s out taking a walk all by himself. "I would have had you Witt if you were a Jap, long ago", he says. Stoked for this release, looks fantastic.

Edit: Also, this means "MyNameCriterionForum" is right. Missed that post...

Saw the first 30 or so minutes of it, and he's right. I stand defeated

Thanks for the confirmation. Jane's a good, likeable character actor. I keep hearing that he's worth watching in Stander...

Tom Hagen wrote:I have never been able to figure out why Tom Jane didn't become a star.

I have felt the same way for years about Anne Sellors

Jane reminds me of Aaron Eckhart without the flash and charisma...he's an ok actor but doesn't really get anyone too excited to see him in a particularly visible role...See Punisher for confirmation.