criterionforum.org

Yes, the older master the BFI used most likely is sharpened at least, so the comparison intuitively isn't in favor of the new disc, but that's a trick. Which is why I switched to purely looking at Blu-ray.com caps with no other reference.

tenia wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:47 pm Chris, when you get it, will you be able to state here what the element used for the restoration ? This doesn't look like the usual "artefacts" of using an IP or IN rather than the OCN either.

I haven't looked at the disc at all yet but the notes say the scan comes from the "Super 35 mm original camera negative."

Thanks Chris. That's what I thought it'd turn out to be. Something definitely happened here.

So I take it the disc doesn't have any of the issues I mentioned previously

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:29 pm So I take it the disc doesn't have any of the issues I mentioned previously

I didn't notice anything you pointed to in that post so I'm guessing not.

tenia wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:39 am Thanks Chris. That's what I thought it'd turn out to be. Something definitely happened here.

So I went through this first time and at first glance I'd say it's fine, and maybe I'm just not seeing what you are. But this is definitely a new scan, not an old master, if that's what your concern was. Colours have been pushed a teal (more evident in exteriors than interiors, though interiors are pretty dark) and the blacks get a bit thick at times, maybe a side-effect of that. The image is not razor-sharp, but it's definitely not fuzzy, and that looks more to be inherent to the photography (I haven't seen this since VHS days so I can't compare to any other release). Grain is there, heavier in places, but there are a few shots that look "dupey" I guess, and then others showed a bit of noise. I'm going to go through it again and I haven't look at grabs (not on Beaver or the other site), but I didn't see anything I'd call super worrying and I definitely wouldn't say it looked like a video presentation.

I don't doubt this is a new restoration, but from what I saw on the caps from Beaver and blu-ray.com, it seems at least at times thick to the point of looking like an older HD master, with some caps looking even worse than this.
Some of Beaver comparisons, like the 1st one (with the subtitles), also seem to make the BFI looks truly having finer details (look at the hair on Everett's fore-arm). It's not just a question of seeming finer because of sharpening, but a truly higher delineation. The third comparison (Mirren alone) also is weird, it's extremely dupey indeed.

I can understand part of it might come from the photo or the elements, but if the BFI indeed really has a better delineation, it can't explain everything since the BFI disc should display the same limitations.

I guess I'll see when I get my hands on the disc.

This is some good, goofy fun. The film has a very serious tone to it, but it’s all done in this arch pseudo-Greenaway style that kept me grinning. There aren’t really any depth nor themes meaningfully used either. You just get disaffected couple bumping into Walken at his monologuing best, going to his house, and threateningly posing at sex the film doesn’t actually seem interested in.

I had a very different experience! It felt a little slow before Walken showed up proper, but from then on I was on its wavelength.

Spoiler

The climax was horrifying, extremely effective. And a theme here that interests me is how there can be desires guiding us that we don't notice or understand, and if we do, the consequences have already been meted out. On a related note, I have to think when Mary throws up the morning after drinking at Robert's bar, it's kind of a subconscious rejection of him, trying to get that "awful man" out of her system. But of course, both she and Colin are later drawn back to him.

Not far into this I was reminded of 2022's Speak No Evil. Whereas I really didn't like that film (and will probably never watch it again), The Comfort of Strangers is a hit for me.

Venice sure ain't good for your health. Between this, Roeg, Visconti... Been there three times and I'm still here though.

knives wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:38 am This is some good, goofy fun. The film has a very serious tone to it, but it’s all done in this arch pseudo-Greenaway style that kept me grinning. There aren’t really any depth nor themes meaningfully used either. You just get disaffected couple bumping into Walken at his monologuing best, going to his house, and threateningly posing at sex the film doesn’t actually seem interested in.

Schrader is no Wes Anderson. On what basis did you make this comparison? *genuine question*

Walter Kurtz wrote:Venice sure ain't good for your health. Between this, Roeg, Visconti... Been there three times and I'm still here though.

And then there’s Who Saw Her Die?

One of my favorite "deadly Venice" movies is Maurizio Lucidi's The Designated Victim and a film that would work well as counterprogramming is David Lean's Summertime.

olmo wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 8:00 am

knives wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:38 am This is some good, goofy fun. The film has a very serious tone to it, but it’s all done in this arch pseudo-Greenaway style that kept me grinning. There aren’t really any depth nor themes meaningfully used either. You just get disaffected couple bumping into Walken at his monologuing best, going to his house, and threateningly posing at sex the film doesn’t actually seem interested in.

Schrader is no Wes Anderson. On what basis did you make this comparison? *genuine question*

On the basis of the film. I was referring primarily to the acting.