criterionforum.org

Could someone please tell me why this movie is spread over two DVDs? I'm a little annoyed with it to tell you the truth. Anyway, I'm looking forward to this. I was very happy to see a young Helen Mirren in the film. (And to think that I thought she was gorgeous now before I saw her so young!)

It's spread over 2 discs? That's disappointing.

The film is on disc 1, special features on disc 2.

Ah, thanks. I assumed the above poster meant that the film itself was spread over two discs.

No, it is spread over two discs. The second disc says "special features" but it has the second part of the movie, too. The chapter menu on the first disc has the remaining chapters listed as being in "part two". I wish I know why this was done.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:No, it is spread over two discs. The second disc says "special features" but it has the second part of the movie, too. The chapter menu on the first disc has the remaining chapters listed as being in "part two". I wish I know why this was done.

that sucks, yesterday I got the first disc from Netflix and didn't even bother to add the second disc to my queue.

I stand corrected. I have the DVD but haven't watched it yet...I assumed (stupidly, I guess) that labeling disc one "movie" and disc two "special features" means exactly that.

But obviously Warners is having quality control issues.

Thanks for that warning. I was just about to pick this up today. Much like the Kubrick fiasco, I'll wait for the dust to settle before purchasing. What the heck is up with Warners lately?

pauling wrote:What the heck is up with Warners lately?

"Lately"? Their quality control has been problematic for over a year (as anyone who bought the two-disc edition of The Searchers knows). I really doubt that they'll "correct" O Lucky Man! We're lucky just to see it released at all.

Just keep repeating to yourself what Robert Harris always says about Warner in his end-of-year rankings of the studios: "There is no second place."

pauling wrote:Thanks for that warning. I was just about to pick this up today. Much like the Kubrick fiasco, I'll wait for the dust to settle before purchasing. What the heck is up with Warners lately?

What's even more annoying about spreading the movie over two discs is that Disc 1 is a single layer DVD. The remaining time could have easily fit on one dual-layer DVD

At least it's not in a snapper, right?

What's the big deal - it's a long movie - a break is nice. It takes, what, thirty seconds to switch discs?

Jeff LeVine wrote:What's the big deal - it's a long movie - a break is nice. It takes, what, thirty seconds to switch discs?

you can fit much more than three hours on a dual layer disc, there was never any reason for them to split the film

DVDBeaver review. Be sure to read the analysis Gary links to in the review. It's quite good.

If Criterion can fit The Leopard (185 minutes + commentary) onto one disc, I don't see why Warner couldn't do it with this film. Unless it's that totally unnecessary 5.1 mix taking up too much space.

Matt wrote:If Criterion can fit The Leopard (185 minutes + commentary) onto one disc, I don't see why Warner couldn't do it with this film. Unless it's that totally unnecessary 5.1 mix taking up too much space.

This is not the case as Disc 1 only contains a bit over 4GB of data. A dual layer DVD can hold nearly 8.5GB's.

Matt and Greggster are right. Why not one disc? Sure, I'll still take the thirty seconds to get up and change the disc, but it was a just a minor WTF moment for me. Does anyone know where I can write in to WB about it? Why don't we all send an e-mail while we're at it?

DVDBeaver not chiding WB for splitting the film is pretty blatantly the turning of a blind eye-- very perplexing.

Being spread over 2 discs is annoying but if that's the only real problem with the set then I can live with it.

I just wish I could find a copy of this damn thing, the usual e-tailers seem to have it but we ordered a few copies for my videostore and our distributor is claiming that they never even received them from WB. I've been hearing rumblings that some step in WB's production chain has broken down/been overloaded and things like the Kubrick box and even some of their new releases are being trickled out in very low numbers.

Does anyone remember if the film was presented with an intermission during its original theatrical run?

While it was foolish of Warner to spread this over two discs, I implore you all not to miss out on the film/disc for that reason, as both are superb. The commentary is a good deal better than If....'s (more Malcolm=more interesting, despite the pauses), the transfer is superb, and it's an all-around delight. I didn't even find the break in the movie that jarring, either: it comes right as McDowell and co. are coming into London, which is probably the best spot for a disc change as I've ever seen on any movie, regardless of whether there was an intermission originally or not (it breaks the movie into its two distinct halves quite beautifully). It's the same as on the Warner video, and the movie itself is fragmented enough that it's not really disruptive at all to switch discs. I know that I sound very apologetic with regards to Warner's handling of the break, but only because the movie and disc are so good and because it ultimately isn't really that consequential.

The commentary is one of the best I've heard in a long time. A must-listen.

I just finished the first disc, what an incredible film (and a great disc to boot). I'm putting on O Lucky Malcom! while I do some work, I'm looking forward to wrapping it up tomorrow and then rewatching it with commentary.

I didn't care for If... and I liked this film even less. These are the only two Lindsay Anderson films I've seen though. Is there anything else I should see before writing him off, or are these representative of his oeuvre?

Give This Sporting Life a chance when the Criterion comes out if you like British New Wave/Free Cinema films. Outside of If... and now O Lucky Man! that's the only other Anderson I've seen.