criterionforum.org

Full details of the BD edition now at our website

OUT TODAY!

And lovely new review at Mondo Digital - "Consider this essential seasonal viewing."

I've been surveying Václav Vorlíček's output on Bluesky, film by film, timed to reach Three Wishes for Cinderella tonight.

(It was supposed to be last night, but I unexpectedly got hold of a copy of Death Chooses, the film he made immediately before, which messed up my scheduling.)

"If you’re looking for a fairytale to brighten your Christmas, one that kicks against gender stereotypes and the Disneyfication of this ancient folk tale and that is an uplifting delight to watch from start to finish, than Three Wishes for Cinderella should be at the top of your viewing list... the presentation on Second Run’s Blu-ray is exemplary, as are the contributions of Michael Brooke and Tim Lucas to the special features. I loved this, and it comes most highly recommended."

Cine Outsider

This is a great package. The film itself is lovely and the restoration looks wonderful in HD. Michael's video essay is superb--worth the price of admission, I'd say. I was curious about the reel change markers that are still visible. I assume these were intentionally left in? Was this why the restoration notes at the start suggest certain flaws (my word, not theirs) were left in? I mean, it *is* closer to what the original audience would have seen to leave them in, though most restorations (in general) remove them.

The Czech National Film Archive's restoration policy is to present their films exactly as they'd have appeared at the premiere - i.e. including reel-change markers. This is an intentional feature, not an accidental oversight.

Oh, and thank you! There's a horrendous proofing mistake that of course has ruined it for me (which is especially ironic given that I fixed a couple of flubs in the earlier version) but I'm glad others have been more tolerant.

MichaelB wrote: Sun Jan 05, 2025 7:00 pm The Czech National Film Archive's restoration policy is to present their films exactly as they'd have appeared at the premiere - i.e. including reel-change markers. This is an intentional feature, not an accidental oversight.

I figured this was the case. Just checking.

I didn’t notice anything, so don’t worry about it. I’m always hyper conscious of errors that slip by in publications, even after copy edits and proofs. But of course the likelihood of anyone actually noticing them is very very low. (Though the worst is when the typesetter misreads the proof correction, making it even worse.)

Nah, this one's blatant, as an onscreen date is contradicted by what I say on the soundtrack over the caption!

(The soundtrack version is correct.)