criterionforum.org

a cretin wrote:as well as a nod to Conrad's Heart of Darkness (and, in turn, Apocalypse Now)

How can a movie from 1971 include a "nod" to a movie from 1979?

On top of a lot of other problems with the review, that's just bad prose.

tryavna wrote:How can a movie from 1971 include a "nod" to a movie from 1979?

To be fair, the phrase "in turn" makes it clear that the nod is to the novel, not the film.

MichaelB wrote:

tryavna wrote:How can a movie from 1971 include a "nod" to a movie from 1979?

To be fair, the phrase "in turn" makes it clear that the nod is to the novel, not the film.

But it would make much more grammatical sense to use the phrase "by extension" rather than "in turn." My point isn't that I don't know what he's talking about; it's that this reviewer just isn't a particularly good writer.

tryavna wrote:But it would make much more grammatical sense to use the phrase "by extension" rather than "in turn." My point isn't that I don't know what he's talking about; it's that this reviewer just isn't a particularly good writer.

Or a particularly conscientious reviewer - if I'd been sent a disc without a menu, I'd make a point of asking the distributor whether this was intentional. Especially if it's a high-quality label like MoC.

To be fair, distributors often don't do themselves any favours by sending out below-par check discs to publications that assess transfer quality. Granted, the pieces I write for Sight & Sound don't go into a huge amount of depth (it's rare that I'll devote more than 50 words to technical matters), but if the disc deviates radically from the final release version, the review becomes actively misleading.

I recently passed on Yume's Santo in the Wax Museum because the transfer on the supplied check disc was so appalling (side-effects of NTSC-PAL encoding caused the picture to pulsate throughout) that I couldn't believe this was going on sale. I didn't have time to chase up a full retail copy, so I ended up not reviewing it at all.

DVD Times Review

He goes on about the video but those captures that Peerpee posted look incredible to me. Otherwise it's positive.

Noel Megahey's reviews normally are rather great, so I think we can trust him here as well. Even the caps he posted don't look too bad (though also not exactly great, quite unlike peerpee's), the warmth of the oranges especially in the next to last one reminds me a little of the look of CC's "Ran", which was much debated here (I still like it very much). The heavy grain would also be more typical for a CC release than for MoC...

Still very much looking forward to this release in any case.

Tommaso wrote:Noel Megahey's reviews normally are rather great...

He's one of the very worst reviewers on the internet.

I strongly suspect that (as with Imamura's Eijanaika) there is not now (nor has there ever been) a print or negative without Japanese subtitles for English dialog. So -- no flaw on either MOC's part or Toho's (unless failing to foresee the digital future was a mistake).

Quite right, and if they are on only for a few moments, it probably adds to the feeling of seeing something 'foreign'. These screen caps don't look bad either, and as always I'm quite happy that MoC resisted the temptation to fiddle with colours and contrast à la Criterion. Old Japanese films often seem to have been rather low-contrast and somewhat darker than one is used to, and it's good that MoC care to preserve that look.

There are Japanese subtitles ingrained in the film image of Yoshida Yoshishige's Farewell to the Summer Light (which takes place in Spain) and Escape From Japan during English dialogue as well. I wonder how often this used to happen? My copy of Hashimoto's I Want to be a Shellfish has a LOT of English dialogue, but no Japanese subs (its from a VHS), then again, I think not knowing what the English speaking war crime inquisitors are saying is part of the point of that one.

I'm going to look around and try to find more instances, but I do believe this was intentional on Shinoda's part, and not something that should be awkwardly erased.

Donald Brown wrote:He's one of the very worst reviewers on the internet.

Would you care to give illustrated reasons for taking such an extreme position, bearing in mind that the worst reviewers on the internet barely know how to string a sentence together?

I certainly don't always agree with him, but he does at least know how to construct a coherent argument - and isn't afraid to take the machete to otherwise sacred cows.

I agree fully with you, though I very seldom read his comments about the films themselves (fear of spoilers), but only the technical bits. But there I mostly find him much to the point. If I remember correctly it was Megahey who indirectly caused a very hot debate here about the colours on the CC "Ran" (where I for once don't necessarily agree), so I think you're right about the sacred cows.

We must of course also beware of simply blindly glorifying everything that MoC does, so I guess we'll have to wait for the dvd to arrive in our homes to finally say something to the point here. Have just got my order in at Bensons...

I'm afriad I agree with Donald Brown (minus the hyperbole). Megahey's positive reviews generally are filled with a lot of recycled would-be truisms and shallow observations (his Ozu reviews, for example, are about what you'd expect to find on the back of their DVD cases). He'll occasionally take a controversial stance, but they're typically poorly supported -- such as his giving INLAND EMPIRE a 4/10 a week or two ago. Perhaps this is a poor example, given the fractured and ambiguous nature of the film, but his comments amounted to little more than "it's a puzzle not worth figuring out" -- despite the fact he clearly hadn't put forth much effort in doing so (and despite the fact that he considers LOST HIGHWAY a masterpiece). This isn't terrible in itself, but he presents his reviews as authoritative when they're, usually, anything but (in response to another DVDTimes reviewer's suggestion that INLAND EMPIRE shared similarities with FINNEGANS WAKE, he declaratively stated otherwise, emphasizing the complexity of Joyce's work and the superficiality of Lynch's -- declarations made, again, without proper (or any) support. And from a personal standpoint, I find his writing immensely boring -- there's no passion; it's as if he were writing out of a desire to project his intelligence rather than out of a genuine love of film.

Noel's not registered on these forums, so he's asked me to post this on his behalf:

[quote="Noel Megahey "]I'm astonished at the fact that it's now me being talked about here rather than the film or the DVD. Between “Donald Brownâ€

[quote="Noel Megahey"]Between “Donald Brownâ€

Thanks, Michael, for posting this reply on Noel's behalf, but reading this almost makes me switch over to Donald's and Titus' point of view. It's understandable that he might feel somewhat pissed off by the all-round condemnation of his work here, but just replying that people here only want to show off their 'wisdom' is just as embarrassing.

[quote="Noel Megahey"]I'm astonished at the fact that it's now me being talked about here rather than the film or the DVD. Between “Donald Brownâ€

Titus wrote:he presents his reviews as authoritative when they're, usually, anything but...

What a strange thing to say... He strikes me as a perfectly decent reviewer, I agree with him most of the time and sometimes not (if I remember correctly he didn't like Cache). What I will say in his defence -not that his (re)views need any defending- is that he shows autonomous thought which is more than I can say for so many people on this forum.

I know I'm running with the hare and hunting with the hounds when I say this but can we now take this thread back to its titular topic...please...

Don Lope de Aguirre wrote:He strikes me as a perfectly decent reviewer, I agree with him most of the time and sometimes not (if I remember correctly he didn't like Cache). What I will say in his defence -not that his (re)views need any defending- is that he shows autonomous thought which is more than I can say for so many people on this forum.

...which is precisely why I read his reviews. And, more to the point, why I personally asked him to review the Quay Brothers and Svankmajer DVDs, even though I knew he wasn't an existing fan (if I remember rightly, he'd seen The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes and Little Otik, but none of the shorts). There were plenty of gushing reviews of both those sets, but Noel's pieces were rather more thorough and rigorous, which is why they rank among my favourites.

And another point in his favour - I know from personal experience (and I also know I'm not the only one) that he'll take the trouble to contact a producer or distributor if he comes across any technical niggles that might need some kind of explanation. Which is far more useful than just jumping to conclusions and slagging something off for no good reason - especially if blame ends up being apportioned to the wrong person (i.e. the DVD producer instead of the supplier of substandard original materials). Silence being a good example, as his review makes it clear that MoC made the best of what they had.

Tommaso wrote:

Titus wrote: but he presents his reviews as authoritative when they're usually anything but (in response to another DVDTimes reviewer's suggestion that INLAND EMPIRE shared similarities with FINNEGANS WAKE, he declaratively stated otherwise, emphasizing the complexity of Joyce's work and the superficiality of Lynch's -- declarations made, again, without proper (or any) support.

Well, honestly, I'd also not compare IE to FW, and would agree with Noel here if he writes that "Joyce's work is about much more than stream-of-consciousness and impenetrability, which is about the only level on which Inland Empire is comparable to it."

Wow! I'm just impressed that so many people have actually read Finnegans Wake. I like Joyce's other stuff, but simply can't make it through more than a few pages of FW.

I'm also rather surprised that so many people still read the DVD reviews for their analysis of each film in question. I have to say that I find very few reviewers particularly helpful in that regard. But then again, I think most reviewers still write primarily to recommend (or not) a particular film. And like a lot of other members of this forum, I've reached a point where I'm gonna watch a movie that piques my interest regardless of the consensus of reviewers.

tryavna wrote:Wow! I'm just impressed that so many people have actually read Finnegans Wake. I like Joyce's other stuff, but simply can't make it through more than a few pages of FW.

Well, in my case it had to do with a professional affair at first, but actually: I simply love it, and reading through a few pages only isn't a bad approach, because every part of the book represents the whole. Don't try to understand it, and read it aloud. As Joyce said: "it is pure music." And "It is meant to make you laugh." And it's certainly his funniest book.

[quote="Noel Megahey"]I'm astonished at the fact that it's now me being talked about here rather than the film or the DVD. Between “Donald Brownâ€

Tommaso wrote:

tryavna wrote:Wow! I'm just impressed that so many people have actually read Finnegans Wake. I like Joyce's other stuff, but simply can't make it through more than a few pages of FW.

Well, in my case it had to do with a professional affair at first, but actually: I simply love it, and reading through a few pages only isn't a bad approach, because every part of the book represents the whole. Don't try to understand it, and read it aloud. As Joyce said: "it is pure music." And "It is meant to make you laugh." And it's certainly his funniest book.

Perhaps I'll get to it eventually. I've just reached a point now where, due to time constraints, I have to decide within the matter of a few pages whether or not a book is "worth" finishing. My impression of it has always been about the same as, say, Beckett's trilogy of short novels: that it's more interesting as an idea than as an actual reading experience.

Steven H wrote:Of course Doug's comments are in regard to the DVD, so its interesting that Neil is using that to compare.

FWIW, I was referencing a direct quote by Shinoda or Miyagawa (I can't remember which, but I can check my notes if need be) in an interview they gave Donlad Richie for the Japan Times on the set of the film. Obviously, on set intentions and final prints do not always synchronize, but much of the film is rendered in desaturated blue-grey-browns, with red used quite conspicuously and intentionally (the brothel, the priest's robe, etc), just as most of the film is composed of long shots with close-ups used for rare emphasis.

Doug Cummings wrote:FWIW, I was referencing a direct quote by Shinoda or Miyagawa (I can't remember which, but I can check my notes if need be) in an interview they gave Donlad Richie for the Japan Times on the set of the film.

Thanks for chiming in and clearing that up. That sounds like it would be a pretty interesting interview to read.