criterionforum.org

Can I get a hell yeah? =D>

The first 'review' on Amazon.

"This is one of the laziest, sloppiest, most pretentiously precious "art" films to emerge from the decade of the sixties (and that's saying something). The acting is terrible, the dialog couldn't be more banal, the camera work is inept, the story telling non-existent... The projector scene alone made me cringe for about twenty minutes (seemed like twenty hours). At first I was embarassed for everyone involved in this picture but eventually I just got angry that so many critics have praised this kind of film for fear of not being considered "hip". Supposedly there's a "statement" being made about bourgeois values and the emptiness of modern life and (fill in the blank). Either that or it's just some idiots making a lousy movie. This is straight from the Godardian school, with an overshadowing sheen of "cool" that supposedly renders such slapped-together junk immune to criticism. I don't care. Not even Godard at his worst is this bad."

The same persons 'review' of Lola Montes.

"Still Lousy After All These Years, August 20, 2009
The issue isn't whether this or that transfer is better or worse: this is a bad film that no amount of after-the-fact tinkering can save. Not even the great Ustinov can rescue this sprawling, miserable mess. The acting is cloyingly annoying, the story telling lurches like a carriage missing a wheel, the title role is filled by an actress who could put hummingbirds to sleep, and the music is like having a cream pie pounded into your ear. The crowds and critics were right the first time when they declared this film a flop upon its initial release. It's still a flop."

I just noticed that the AR on the Minerva DVD is 4:3, while it is 1.66:1 on the Criterion. I'm assuming the Criterion is correct, but does anyone know for sure?
Just as I was passing on the Criterion, it looks like I'll now have to pick it up! :-k

EDIT: here is a sample to show the difference. The Minerva shows more on the top and bottom, the Criterion more on the left and right.

Minerva


Criterion


not to mention that the Criterion has a nicer image in general.

Fierias wrote:I just noticed that the AR on the Minerva DVD is 4:3, while it is 1.66:1 on the Criterion. I'm assuming the Criterion is correct, but does anyone know for sure?

FWIW (admittedly very little), the Minerva states in the small print at the bottom of the back cover: "The widescreen version is presented in a letterbox widescreen format, preserving the 1.33:1 aspect ration of this original theatrical exhibition. Enhanced for 4:3 widescreen TVs." Whatever that means. And the notoriously unreliable IMDB lists it as Academy ratio.

I actually forgot to check the booklet and see what they said about the transfer, but it says 1.66:1 is the original aspect ratio and that transfer was approved by DP Mario Vulpiani. For what that's worth.

cdnchris wrote:I actually forgot to check the booklet and see what they said about the transfer, but it says 1.66:1 is the original aspect ratio and that transfer was approved by DP Mario Vulpiani. For what that's worth.

Might be worth a lot unless this is another Last Emperor. :-k

I took the Minerva disk and opened it up using VLC to 1.66:1. What you get is very similar to the Criterion caps with a little loss of image on the sides. Which is what you would expect, of course. The difference in PQ on my plasma display with upscaling is not as stark as the caps above, but that's comparing the actual Minerva image with a cap viewed on my iMac, so take with a large grain of salt.

From the Everlasting Moments thread...

triodelover wrote:

What A Disgrace wrote:You can stop your email campaign. Both this and Close-up are also bumped to Blu.

Now what the Hell am I going to do with this 10,000 word e-mail to Mulvaney?

Send it for a Blu of Dillinger is Dead

Ovader wrote:From the Everlasting Moments thread...

triodelover wrote:

What A Disgrace wrote:You can stop your email campaign. Both this and Close-up are also bumped to Blu.

Now what the Hell am I going to do with this 10,000 word e-mail to Mulvaney?

Send it for a Blu of Dillinger is Dead

First we have to solve the AR quandary. :-k

I love movies like Dillinger Is Dead. Last night was my first time seeing it; while I can't say I "got" all of it, images from it have stuck in my head for hours afterward. Piccoli and the gun salad. Piccoli and the home movies. Piccoli on the boat. I'm looking forward to a long and satisfying relationship with this film.

Re: the aspect ratio conundrum, the 1.66:1 frame looks fine, though there were a couple of moments where it seemed a bit tight. I'm thinking specifically of the early scene at Piccoli's office where he's standing up at the right side of the frame and his colleague is sitting at a desk on the left. It's shot at a low angle and the top of Piccoli's head is cut off. This may've been intentional, though.

I hope this has sold well enough to warrant more Ferreri's. This reminded greatly of the Klein's to be honest, except no pacing issues. In fact this felt like a twenty minute short and I was shocked when it was over.

any thoughts on why he

Spoiler

killed his wife

, i am dumbfounded

Ennui.

To see if the polka dots worked.

What else would he do with a loaded gun?

jamiersale wrote:any thoughts on why he

Spoiler

killed his wife

, i am dumbfounded

Anita Pallenberg is simply a pain in the ass.

Is it safe to expect a blu ray of Dillinger Is Dead in the future or should I just buy the DVD if I want the film?

Buy the DVD. It was released during the Blu-ray era so if they didn't release it on Blu, there must've been a good reason.

if they didn't release it on Blu, there must've been a good reason.

Any idea what that reason may have been? Having watched and fell in love with the film recently, it became obvious that there was nothing particularly bad about the original materials. In fact, the print looked quite good, which makes the absence of a blu-ray edition all the more confounding.

Criterion probably didn't think there was a market for a blu ray release, but on the flip side, how is there any more of a market for films like The Secret of the Grain, and Revanche on blu ray?

It still makes no sense though, because anyone who buys a blu ray of Last Year at Marienbad or Red Desert is bound to be interested in a rare vintage art film starring Michele Piccoli.

You just named two of the most famous art house pictures of all time in relation to a niche release

Red Desert's not that well known unless you're a hardcore cinephile/film lover.

rrenault wrote:Red Desert's not that well known unless you're a hardcore cinephile/film lover.

neither is Marienbad