criterionforum.org

Michael Kerpan wrote:I've seen this screened several times since 2000. There is simply no way one is ever going to seen a truly adequate presentation -- absent discovery of time travel (which would allow one to find a non-ravaged film source).

[i]Dr.[/i] Svet Atanasov wrote: There are sizeable improvements in the audio department as well. For example, it immediately becomes obvious that serious work has been done to remove the background hiss that is present on the previous release. The cracks and pops have also been eliminated. It appears that specific stability enhancements have been performed as well because the mid/high registers are now better balanced. This being said, in the upper register there are still some light distortions, but they are managed in such a way that impact on clarity is minimal at best. (You should be able to hear the source limitations during the ceremony around 02.22.19, where the music and crowd noise bring them forward). The dialog is easy to follow.

Lemmy Caution wrote:Throughout Tchaikovsky there are plenty of hints about his sexual orientation.
Going into the film, I had no idea Tchakovsky was gay and I picked up on it in the first half hour, just from the relationship with Rubinstein.

T is awfully close and happy with Rubinstein, and even allows Rubinstein to thwart a potential romance/marriage with a woman. Then out of the blue, Tchaikovsky marries a young attractive woman, but has no idea how to deal with her, has nothing to say to her, and is miserable. So he attempts suicide and quickly divorces her. Finally when his benefactress professes love for him and actually wants to meet him -- they had corresponded by letter and check for 13 years -- he hurriedly flees in a panic. At the end, he can't imagine why Turgenev is interested in chasing skirts in Paris. Etc.

I actually liked how the film didn't discuss the issue directly, in the spirit of that era, but still made it rather clear what was tormenting Tchaikovsky.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Surprisingly the PhD does like a few good films -- but one wonders why he spends so much time watching Japanese films he neither understands nor likes.

He knows a lot less than he thinks he knows -- for instance, he thinks 47 Loyal Ronin is about a plot to murder the Shogun. He also derides Kinoshita for not shooting 24 Eyes in cinemascope, not realizing that wide screen movie making had not yet reached Japan at this point.

MichaelB wrote:

Michael Kerpan wrote:Surprisingly the PhD does like a few good films -- but one wonders why he spends so much time watching Japanese films he neither understands nor likes.

He knows a lot less than he thinks he knows -- for instance, he thinks 47 Loyal Ronin is about a plot to murder the Shogun. He also derides Kinoshita for not shooting 24 Eyes in cinemascope, not realizing that wide screen movie making had not yet reached Japan at this point.

What was his PhD actually in? If it wasn't Japanese cinema or something closely related, what's the point of bringing it up at all?

My youngest siblings both have PhDs, and I don't think either of them mentions this outside the specific research context in which they were awarded them. But then again, they're not desperately insecure.

I'm reminded of someone who kept referring to himself as "an award-winning film director". This was not technically untrue, but let's just say that the award fell some distance short of an Oscar or a Cannes or Venice festival gong, and leave it discreetly at that.

MichaelB wrote: My youngest siblings both have PhDs, and I don't think either of them mentions this outside the specific research context in which they were awarded them. But then again, they're not desperately insecure.

I do not recognize Criterions decision to stray from the format specs.

To me Criterion embodies the the absolute worst about taste in movies, namely not having any.

That they are acting like there is a 'right answer' when it comes to what what makes great Movies, and that they have taken upon themselves the right to decide this is (and should be to everyone I think) nothing less than insulting.

To me there is no logic to someone liking all movies that Criterion releases, to me it is basing your own 'taste' on what critics say. I dont care what your taste is, just have your OWN taste.

I had a coworker, and whenever I would recommend him a movie he would say that he needed to check the imdb rating before watching..

I love the idea of doing everything to present a movie the best possible way, I just think they release mostly the wrong movies when there are soo many amazing ones out there to choose from.

Dialogue and narration are clear, but not very authoritative. It's at least well positioned and never struggles with prioritization. Reverberation is nicely presented at a large gathering around the 10-minute mark. Music is nicely spaced along the front

mizoguchi5354 wrote:

I am just going to blockquote some portions down below this paragraph, and I invite you to join me in making halting, inarticulate, baffled vocalizations at them.

Here are some things Richard Brody wrote about a PG-13 space adventure movie about space good guys and space bad guys firing space lasers at each other.

GA Girl on Amazon wrote:I just truly don't think I've seen a film this bad in all my life...
It couldn't get any worse...wow, I wanted to slit my wrists, settled on leaving early. If you want to here a yankee say the "f" word about 500 times, this is your film. Otherwise save yourself the temporary depression and skip it!!!

IMDB wrote:

Profanity:

Over 125 profanities, including "fuck".

The f word is used 110 times.