criterionforum.org

Query -- how much of this was actually shot in Tulsa? (Never saw this -- as I recall finding the book pretty annoying).

pro-bassoonist wrote:But I do not intend to turn this into a discussion.

Then why post at all (Feel free to apply this query to every post you've made here)

Pro-bassoonist, I haven't seen Rumble Fish in motion but the screengrabs look better than the ones for Two-Lane Blacktop.

pro-bassoonist wrote:

evillights wrote:Just a quick word on this —

When we first reviewed the master back in November, we thought it looked acceptable: mostly very clean, and overall quite nice — and we stand by this. DVDBeaver's assessment seems in line with our own, and the frame-grabs they've posted give a pretty accurate representation of the disc.

We're surprised at the take on the video quality of the film over at Blu-ray.com, by this Dr. Svet Atanasov — especially given the high marks he's rated the image quality on a specific few other past titles of ours which comparatively might pose greater challenges to the, shall we say, 'most discerning' assessor. — i.e., Rumble Fish ain't a bad-lookin' disc.

I was sent a link to the above post. I would like to leave a quick comment as well.

1. First, I find the tone of your post extremely disappointing and disrespectful. Especially because I've done so much to promote the MOC label and its output. And not just by writing reviews for its releases. [...] In any event, I am very surprised by the sarcastic reaction the review received here. But I do not intend to turn this into a discussion.

There was absolutely no sarcasm in my post, nor was it "disrespectful" beyond differing from your own take on the master. To reiterate: we simply disagree with your assessment, and have noted that more problematic masters, or at least those we have considered in-house more problematic perhaps on a technical/preservational basis, have received higher marks — which is fine, and shows that we simply have different evaluational criteria between us, and must agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

If I may make an independent observation.

evillights wrote:... by this Dr. Svet Atanasov

This comes across as dismissive and demeaning and seems intentionally so.

evillights wrote: — especially given the high marks he's rated the image quality on a specific few other past titles of ours which comparatively might pose greater challenges to the, shall we say, 'most discerning' assessor

And this strongly implies that Svet is unworthy of the sobriquet "most discerning".

evillights wrote:There was absolutely no sarcasm in my post, nor was it "disrespectful" beyond differing from your own take on the master.

Finally, this is just disingenuous.

Disclaimer: I have zero interest in this particular film or any review of it. I don't know Svet personally, so I'm not responding from that perspective. And I own the vast majority of MoC's DVD and BD catalogues and consider myself a supporter of their efforts.

For fuck's sake.

DRAMA QUEENS!

How does Svet arrive at the overall score of 2.5 for the entire disc? The film itself, sound & extras get high marks so I'd have thought that the final score would have been higher than 2.5 even if he thinks that the image is compromised.

imhotep wrote:For fuck's sake.
DRAMA QUEENS!

Some useful info
http://www.zedge.net/ringtone/1210369/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

more like Grumble Fish

It's not MoC's best Blu-ray by a long shot, but the transfer was better than I'd been led to believe by the Blu-ray.com review - I think the Beev slightly exaggerates its virtues, but what I saw is certainly closer to their description.

It's certainly the best I've seen it look since I last saw it in 35mm - and it improves on the 35mm prints in one important respect, as the shots of the red and blue fish are no longer quite so jarring because to achieve the effect in 35mm, colour film had to be spliced in at the appropriate point, changing the entire quality of the image, including the black-and-white portions. (Schindler's List suffered from a similar problem, and I suspect that too will look better on Blu-ray).

Also, though I'm normally a 5.1-remix sceptic, I have to say that I rather liked the surround track here: the strong separation of the various elements of Stewart Copeland's percussive score makes the film seem even more stylised, which is a definite plus*. (But the original cinema track is also included for purists).

(*It's even more of a plus if you last saw the film at London's long-defunct Scala Cinema, which could only manage lo-fi mono!)

Just received two of these today. Whoops, looks like I pre-ordered the steelbook twice. Can't wait to screen it tonight.

Is this OOP? I can't find it on Eureka's site

domino harvey wrote:Is this OOP? I can't find it on Eureka's site

It's still available on Amazon UK so I imagine not.

domino harvey wrote:Is this OOP? I can't find it on Eureka's site

I believe there still are titles for which Kevin still hasn't created a webpage since the revamp of Eureka's store. Rumble Fish could be part of them.

It's not old enough to have gone OOP unless there was an unexpected rights snag - and if that was the case, surely Kevin would have urged us to snap it up as quickly as possible?