criterionforum.org

According to Beaver, we not only lose info top and bottom (yes i understand one is open matte so we're bound to lose that info when watching 1.66), but we ALSO lose info (a little bit) left and right.

Expected?

absolutely expected. You were never meant to see that information. It is finally in the appropriate AR as per Kubrick.

The phrase "too much information!" (or "TMI") was actually coined in reference to this film.

Looking at the screencaps at dvdbeaver, something in me still prefers the composition of the open matte shots - regardless of which is considered the proper AR. Am I alone here?

daniel p wrote:Am I alone here?

Yes

No

domino harvey wrote:No

I'll trade you my MGM DVD for your CC Blu-ray, straight up.

Slant continues its bad habit of assigning people to review DVDs of movies they hate. This is not as bad as their review of Disney's Beauty and the Beast but it is still annoying. A DVD review should review the disc more and the movie less. I would not consider a purchase if I disliked the film.

Reviewers should not be critical? Not sure what point you're making...

I may not have agreed with everything he said but it made for an interesting read. There's nothing worse than blandness.

Significant amounts written in the past re: film. Not to say he shouldn't now but that's it? Why bother "reviewing" a DVD if you're not even going to spend more than 3 lines on the most current aspect: the transfer. The film isn't any different than the DVD. If you want to review the film do it. If you're reviewing the DVD at least bother to review it. Their review of Disney's Beauty and the Beast was far more harsh but at least a bit more substantial on the actual reviewing the DVD portion.

Lazy reviewing. Writing about the film is the easiest part. Watch, think, write. Transfer analysis is tricky and requires active viewing.

This is getting off topic, but as a rule, they hate Disney movies at Slant.

As for Paths of Glory, I can't say that I entirely disagree with the reviewer. I like the film more than he does, and I do plan on buying the Criterion blu-ray, but I don't think its as strong as Kubrick's later films, and I have always thought the ending seemed a bit forced. Although I admit it moves me. I guess I'm as wishy-washy as the film. :-$

zitherstrings wrote:Writing about the film is the easiest part.

Really? For me, and I would think for most people, critical analysis and intellectual engagement are a lot harder than the fairly mechanical process of keeping an eye out for interlacing and what have you.

Is that actually a new review? Sometimes they paste an old review of the film into the new review of the DVD, and then tack on their comments about transfer, extra features, etc. That said, 3/5 stars is a bit harsh -- on a purely technical and formal level this film is extraordinary, especially for a self-taught director still under thirty. I will admit I find this the least compelling of all Kubrick's work because it's the least ambiguous. It's a propaganda film - a wonderfully made one, whose intentions I agree with - but it's still didactic.

That same Slant.com reviewer gave a 4/5 rating to Lost: Season Five. Just saying....

They gave a 4/5 to Apples too, but still assigned an unbelievable 2/5 to Oranges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxqdgIZz_2w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

um

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxqdgIZz_2w

I kinda like it!

As I mentioned here my discovery today of the Kanopy streaming service, I noticed that they have Kubrick's first film Fear and Desire to stream. I've never had a chance to see it, and am excited to stream it tomorrow. It's my final Kubrick film to screen.

Given that CC thankfully put Killer's Kiss as an extra on The Killing BD, and the fact that F&D is a war film, it seems only natural that F&D should have been included on the PoG BD as an extra. So, doing some rudimentary research, I got this:

This [Fear and Desire] was thought to be a lost film, and one researcher, Mark Carducci, had suggested that Stanley Kubrick destroyed the negative following the death of Joseph Burstyn, the film's distributor. Bootleg copies abound, however, and there is one (legal) print in all of the Americas. It is located in the Kodak archives in Rochester, NY; the Stanley Kubrick estate allows viewing of the film with the provisos that it is screened by individuals (not groups), that the print never leaves the building in which it is housed and that it cannot be duplicated in whole or in part.

Alright, but then why does the NYPL have a print to stream (can we then agree that this means the film is somewhat available to the public, if not readily?), why would CC not be able to get their hands on it? Does anyone have any other information, theories, or wild conjecture?

I also realize that F&D might have been floating around on Youtube for years

Kino have the U.S. rights. They put it out on Blu-ray five years ago.

Masters of Cinema also have it and put it on Blu-ray (that's the one I own). It also has all (most?) of his short films.

EDIT: And I just noticed it's on Amazon Prime.

Right. Kino's only has The Seafarers, whereas MoC's has all three of his early short films. All of these films are FOR COMPLETISTS ONLY, so it's best to go for the complete package if anything.

Thanks for the information

A copy was also concealed within the pages of the Bible aox's father gave him for graduation

domino harvey wrote:A copy was also concealed within the pages of the Bible aox's father gave him for graduation

Well, no wonder I didn't see it. :-"

Watched F&D this morning. Interesting footnote, but didn't seem more than a curiosity. Which I suppose is generally its most favorable accolade.