criterionforum.org

I rarely read Tooze's comments so I don't know if he's often like this, but yeah, confusing. Maybe he wants to stay on their good side? There's no shortage of reviewers out there that'll praise things in order to keep the freebies coming.

Also perkizitore's comment re the Crit's: "less interesting" supplements is odd as minus the shortened Pialat interview and plus the Jones visual essay, they're exactly the same.

Finch wrote:Gary needs to have his head examined for not calling this clearly in favour of MoC - the Criterion is Anne Widdecombe to MoC's Angelina Jolie.

I don't know who Anne Widdecombe is, but I'd still take her sight unseen over Angelina Jolie.

med wrote:I rarely read Tooze's comments so I don't know if he's often like this, but yeah, confusing. Maybe he wants to stay on their good side? There's no shortage of reviewers out there that'll praise things in order to keep the freebies coming.

Remember when he bragged about not reviewing the Martha Graham set as evidence that he wasn't bought and sold by Criterion? LOL forever

Admittedly, it's been quite a while since I saw Pialat's film, but this outrageously yellowed image certainly does not match my memory of it on any aspect.

I am as puzzled as others as to how wishy-washy Mr. Tooze's remarks on the issue are. This DVD should be condemned with much stronger words than what he has allowed himself to print.

swo17 wrote:

Finch wrote:Gary needs to have his head examined for not calling this clearly in favour of MoC - the Criterion is Anne Widdecombe to MoC's Angelina Jolie.

I don't know who Anne Widdecombe is, but I'd still take her sight unseen over Angelina Jolie.

This comes up in a Google Image Search for "Anne Widdecombe." None of those ladies are Anne Widdecombe, though-- at least, I don't think! Damn those COPS'd eyes!

If anything, we now have a frontrunner for Criterion's worst-looking release of the year.

swo, Widdecombe is an elder British Conservative politician. I've not posted images before so not sure if this link is going to work but here's a picture of her.

Mine is officially better

Grabbed this version off Criterion's website:

That's hysterical

I've seen Widdecombe in person and can attest that Criterion's photo more faithfully represents the color of her teeth and liver spots.

swo17 wrote:

Finch wrote:Gary needs to have his head examined for not calling this clearly in favour of MoC - the Criterion is Anne Widdecombe to MoC's Angelina Jolie.

I don't know who Anne Widdecombe is, but I'd still take her sight unseen over Angelina Jolie.

I second that motion.

Finch wrote:swo, Widdecombe is an elder British Conservative politician.

Actually, didn't Louis Theroux do a special with her? He turned out all right, if memory serves. I stand by my decision.

med wrote: Also perkizitore's comment re the Crit's: "less interesting" supplements is odd as minus the shortened Pialat interview and plus the Jones visual essay, they're exactly the same.

The major disappointment in the extras department obviously is the shortened Pialat interview, but if you look at the specs more closely you will notice that MoC has a Tarrazon interview that Criterion lacks...

Dr. Geek wrote:But I'll end up buying it anyway.

You realize the MOC is R0, it should play on any blu player and almost all recent DVD players.

knives wrote:

Dr. Geek wrote:But I'll end up buying it anyway.

You realize the MOC is R0, it should play on any blu player and almost all recent DVD players.

MOC is PAL Region 0. Not everyone has a region all player yet.

BTW what's the deal with the screen capture of the film Beaver posted where the kid is pointing through the window. I couldn't help but think of the evil monkey from Family Guy when I saw it.

No, all of their Pialat's are R0. As someone who is region locked I can guarantee this. All he needs is a PAL capable player which he might even have and presto! he doesn't have to look at dehydrated urine filters.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:The Criterion has significantly more information on either side, they're the exact same aspect ratio, yet the Criterion must be stretched. That logic doesn't follow.

The issue with the Criterion is surely squashing rather than stretching. There's generally more information in the frame than is intended to appear on the screen, and we've seen countless examples of this in the slightly differently framed versions of various films over the years (e.g. the 'wrong' AR on Criterion's Gertrud - part of the difference is accounted for additional lateral information not included in the 'correct' - differently cropped - BFI), so having additional info in the Criterion at this AR doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the correctness / manipulation of the MoC / Gaumont. They might have just gone further to the edge of the frame than the other transfer (or a projectionist) and then squeezed it slightly.

I kind of like the piss stain coloring.

oldsheperd wrote:I kind of like the piss stain coloring.

Get yourself a pair of

domino harvey wrote:

oldsheperd wrote:I kind of like the piss stain coloring.

Get yourself a pair of

Glasses irritate the bridge of my nose.

I meant date twins

domino harvey wrote:I meant date twins

He's here all week, folks! And all next week too!

Actually, he's always here.

zedz wrote:

domino harvey wrote:I meant date twins

He's here all week, folks! And all next week too!

Actually, he's always here.

Freak me out Frank!

I actually like the Criterion colors. Gives the film a better tone

Mikos Stenopolis wrote:I actually like the Criterion colors. Gives the film a better tone

How much did they give you?