criterionforum.org

Annie Mall wrote:

tavernier wrote:I've never been a Roeg fan, and I think this is his emptiest, most irritating movie (with a scandalously inept Bowie performance offsetting Candy Clark's amazing one).

Glad to see you're spending your money on things you like.

I think it's safe to assume that he's getting these releases early because they're review copies. Which of course are free.

gigimonagas wrote:Is it a digipak? I believe it has to be since the novel is included.

No it's not....it's the same double-box used for the Antonionis and for NAKED, among others.

but the book is seperate right? it comes as a pull out, like short cuts, just with a 2 disc snapper instead of digipak? Is the cover that pulls out the same as what is on the front?

I want DIGI PAK!!

haha, sorry

SncDthMnky wrote:but the book is seperate right? it comes as a pull out, like short cuts, just with a 2 disc snapper instead of digipak? Is the cover that pulls out the same as what is on the front?

1) The book is separate

2) It's like "Short Cuts" sans digipak

3) The cover of the outside box shows Bowie's face with the title, the cover of the inside case shows a barren landscape with the title

daniel p wrote:It is bizarre to read that you actually own the dvd, and write about it, even though you call the film 'empty' and 'irritating'. If i could afford to buy the films I class as such, I'd be a very broke man...

I'm a Candy Clark completist....so sue me!

tavernier wrote:2) It's like "Short Cuts" sans digipak

Burden of Dreams-style you mean?

Don't remember the BURDEN set....gave that away after watching it.

Hopefully, the deathknell has sounded for digipaks at Criterion, but I am sure it is probably at the discretion of the title's producer. The fact that they did not use a digipak for this set is pretty surprising and encouraging.

tavernier wrote:1) The book is separate

2) It's like "Short Cuts" sans digipak

3) The cover of the outside box shows Bowie's face with the title, the cover of the inside case shows a barren landscape with the title

NICE.

analoguezombie wrote:The last time I saw this movie was on VHS and it had the same gritty, dull look of a VHS editions of 70's British fare.

Think you had it bad? My first viewing was a 16mm print projected on the whitewashed cinderblock wall of a local community college. Which in and of itself might not have been completely terrible, except for the fact that they were projecting an anamorphic print -- without the corrective lens. I eventually resorted to standing next to the "screen" with my head flat against the wall, trying to "manually" compensate for the anamorphosis. Talk about your "thin white duke."

eventually resorted to standing next to the "screen" with my head flat against the wall

Was this a film class? If not I wonder if others thought you were a weirdo in love with Bowie or something?

oldsheperd wrote:Was this a film class? If not I wonder if others thought you were a weirdo in love with Bowie or something?

It might have been for the college's film class, but it was open to the public -- free admission too, if I recall. These days I'd have just walked out, but this was a good 20 years ago and it was not an easy film to find at the time (at least not in suburban Chicago). In retrospect it probably was a pretty eccentric-looking thing for me to, but I figured if nobody else cared enough to complain about the projection, they sure as hell weren't going to mind if I stood up there for an hour.

I first saw the film at a drive-in. On a saturday. Dum-doo-wah.

(deleted - see below why)

Would you mind repeating that, darling?

Annie Mall wrote:So what does the "More!" is anyway?

The correct grammar is "So what DO the "More!" is anyway"

Well, excuse me if English is not my native language. Anyway, as far as spelling mistakes are concerned, most everyone on this forum has made them. Even Matt. Oh, yeah.

Sooo, what are the complete extras of this disc, for Christ's sake?! (is that better?)

Clyde's correction makes even less sense! Unless he's taking the piss. English isn't my native language either. "Shite" apparently is.

From what can gather, the full specs are what Criterion's own page states: The Man Who Fell to Earth

I wonder why the version comparisons from the Laserdisc are not included? I never saw the cut versions, thankfully but I'd like to see that feature, nonetheless. Sorry for being a pedantic twat, Annie!

The one review I read (from DVD Movie Central) mentioned a video interview with author Walter Tevis. Apart from that, I haven't heard about anything more being added.

-BJ

Gordon McMurphy wrote:I wonder why the version comparisons from the Laserdisc are not included? I never saw the cut versions, thankfully but I'd like to see that feature, nonetheless.

Here is a review of the recently released french disc which apparently includes BOTH versions.

Oh, and Gordon, the page that you linked to doesn't have the full extras listed if you pay close attention. And as much as I want to be cross with you, I can't: your avatar is just too lovely for me to do that.

From DVD Movie Central

There are a pair of audio-only interviews featuring costume designer May Routh and production designer Brian Eastwell on one and novelist Walter Tevis on the other.

Excellent. Tevis died in 1984 of lung cancer. He was 56. I wonder where they plucked this from?

Annie Mall wrote:Oh, and Gordon, the page that you linked to doesn't
have the full extras listed if you pay close attention.

Pfft! Fat chance! I'm glad you like Hector!

What are these "both" versions? I can't read that French page and even the Babelfish translation is unintelligible.

PfR73 wrote:What are these "both" versions? I can't read that French page and even the Babelfish translation is unintelligible.

It's easy... look: At the time of its exit, it is d?d?e to shorten film by?minant various s?ences and the film will be tr?mal accomodated in the rooms. That n.emp?e not Dino De Laurentiis of miser very of m? on Nicolas Roeg for d.adapter GORDON FLASH for large the?an. But to the end d.un year, the producer n.est not enthousiasm?ar the treatment of the cin?te and will give finally the r?isation?a href="listname.php3?

But seriously, I am wondering this too. It has a run time of 133 PAL - which would equate to the 138 of the NTSC, and IMDB only lists 1 version.

PfR73 wrote:What are these "both" versions? I can't read that French page and even the Babelfish translation is unintelligible.

The "both" versions are the shorter and the director's cut one. Another member more informed about these two can better explain all this.

As for that french review (and you english speaking people should really start learning another language), here is an excerpt that says all about the shorter version:

Le deuxième disque contient une nouvelle fois le film mais dans une version allégée d'une quinzaine de minutes. Ce montage raccourci n'a droit qu'au doublage français.

which roughly translates to: "The second disc contains the film in a shortened version of less 15 minutes. This version is presented only with a french dub". Needless to say, it doesn't have english subtitles.