criterionforum.org

Ben Cheshire wrote:In his Forrest Gump review, Harris begins, "Life is life a box of chocolates." Is Harris being serious, or is he just making a reference to the film he's reviewing? I'd like to believe the former, but I've found few mountains with gooey centres, and why, if this comparison were to be at all valid, I think life would at least have to be a lot smaller. And with more pointy edges.

Probably he is referring to this

perkizitore wrote:

Ben Cheshire wrote:In his Forrest Gump review, Harris begins, "Life is life a box of chocolates." Is Harris being serious, or is he just making a reference to the film he's reviewing? I'd like to believe the former, but I've found few mountains with gooey centres, and why, if this comparison were to be at all valid, I think life would at least have to be a lot smaller. And with more pointy edges.

Probably he is referring to this

If you're interested to understand my post fully, make sure you read the quoted section in context with it.

My copy just arrived. I agree the restoration efforts have done something strange. I've always found this film looked terrible on home video, oversaturated and damaged, so the blu ray improves in some areas producing a more stable image, but the colours are definitely lacking something major. For instance, in the train-car smooching scene, Grant's face is just a dark blotch, whereas on DVD it was totally visible. David raised the issue of how much better this film looked in its VistaVision negative in 1959; that may be the case, but it doesn't necessarily mean we can expect it to look that good today; from the sounds of it the negative was in pretty bad shape after all these years. I think it looks pretty good in many places, and heaps better than I've seen it on TV or DVD.

david hare wrote: the meticulous lighting of the set is indistinct, there's no feeling of forergound let alone the near three dimensionality that Vistavision could deliver, and the beautiful silk red and Black dress worn by Saint in this scene, which should jump out and grab you from the screen has absolutely no vibrancy whatsoever. .

THIS

I was thinking of picking this up, but...

I'll probably judge all present and future versions of this film based on this dress alone. In fact, this dress was what made me conclude to my family and friends that "no woman can go wrong with red."

But if the Blu Ray is anything like that lone capture shown on Gary's site of Saint in her red and black devil-dress, boy, this is pretty bad. I did not think it was possible to make her look so ordinary in that dress but...excellent job, Warner! I have been proven wrong!

I watched my 2000 R1 dvd last night and loved it, it was only my second time I've watched this movie.
Because it was just hours before that I had a look at beaver's review page and screengrabs I noticed that I wasn't seeing everything.
Even the title screen is cutoff on the sides, the copyright (c) and the tiny MGM logo are cut in half, and when Hitchcock misses the bus, the licence plate is also cut in half.
My previous dvd player was a pretty basic Toshiba but it had a really great zoom function: the last zoom was basically an un-zoom where you could actually reveal more of the frame that was usually seen. I think with that function I may have been able to reveal what has been cutoff in this version (player is broken)?
Are there some settings that I am unaware of or was this print like this, and only subsequent releases correct the image?

Also, seeing as it was discussed here I noticed a couple of things I'd like to discuss here. When EMS appears in the Chicago hotel with the black and red dress, she is on the rugs in the lobby that from the point of view we see this, almost match her dress (I think the rug is just red but the shadows make it look red and black). Is looks a bit weird, I mean, you never match dress color with the furniture etc
However in the "Making of" EMS says that Hitch didn't like any of MGM's costumes and he took her to Burgdorff and bought her dresses off the models. So it could be just a coincidence.
However I also noticed that the floor and hotel room she is in are almost completely grey tones (including Cary's hair and the suit he wears throughout the movie) so of course her dress pops out really well.
I read that apparently this movie was done with absolutely no hidden meanings etc, so were these just choices for making it look nice?

During the "Making of" they also state that Hitch had a problem when EMS and Martin Landau were supposed to have a telephone conversation in the train station and he didn't know how ML would know her booth's phone number, and halted production for a day until he found a satisfying solution. But this solution was not disclosed in the special. What was it?

And for last, one thing I thought was a bit odd: after being shot at, Cary and Leo G. Carroll are in the hospital and LGC brings him new clothes and sits down right in front of him while he changes into them from a simple towel around his waist. Lol. Some privacy please no?

Westwood wrote:I watched my 2000 R1 dvd last night and loved it, it was only my second time I've watched this movie.
Because it was just hours before that I had a look at beaver's review page and screengrabs I noticed that I wasn't seeing everything.
Even the title screen is cutoff on the sides, the copyright (c) and the tiny MGM logo are cut in half, and when Hitchcock misses the bus, its licence plate is also cut in half.
My previous dvd player was a pretty basic Toshiba and it had a really great zoom function: the last zoom was basically an un-zoom where you could actually reveal more of the frame that was usually seen. I think with that function I may have been able to reveal what has been cutoff here in my hom (player is broken).
Are there some settings that I am unaware of or was this print like this, and only subsequent releases correct the image?

Some players have zoom capability that allows you to counter the effects of your display's overscan. My first Malata (R.I.P) had an incremental zoom that let me get it pin point precise.

Westwood wrote:I read that apparently this movie was done with absolutely no hidden meanings etc, so were these just choices for making it look nice?

:-"

Westwood wrote:I read that apparently this movie was done with absolutely no hidden meanings etc

Sometimes a train going through a tunnel is just a train going through a tunnel...

HarryLong wrote:

Westwood wrote:I read that apparently this movie was done with absolutely no hidden meanings etc

Sometimes a train going through a tunnel is just a train going through a tunnel...

That one is so obvious I didn't even consider it worth mentioning...