criterionforum.org

Cul-de-Sac



Roman Polanski orchestrates a mental ménage à trois in this slyly absurd tale of paranoia from the director’s golden 1960s period. Donald Pleasance and Françoise Dorléac star as a withdrawn couple whose isolated house is infiltrated by a rude, burly American gangster on the run, played by Lionel Stander. The three engage in a game of shifting identities and sexual and emotional humiliations. Cul-de-sac is an evocative, claustrophobic, and morbidly funny tale of the modern world in chaos.

- New digital restoration, approved by director Roman Polanski (with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition)
- Two Gangsters and an Island, a 2003 short documentary about the making of Cul-de-sac, featuring interviews with Polanski, producer Gene Gutowski, and cinematographer Gil Taylor
- Interview with Polanski from 1967
- Theatrical trailers
- PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by film critic David Thompson

DVD
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Blu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

This is a weird (even for Polanski) film, and not a particularly successful one, but Jesus, why did they even license this one if that's all they're bothering to include?

This should of been the 2nd of the $20 releases they seem to be doing (with little to no features, and to add crappy artwork). But Polanski's name I guess pushes the price alone.

The way I see it, for a title as marginal as this it was between Criterion releasing it or going the BOD route, so despite the slim supplements I'm happy to see it arrive on Blu (though I admittedly have a soft spot for minor Polanski).

The Two Gangsters documentary was on the previous DVD release, too, so Criterion really didn't add much. On the other hand, maybe firsthand material from Polanski has been a little harder to get for the last few years...

How much would a commentary have cost? =;

Too much to support prices like this:

Cul-de-sac Criterion DVD for $1

Guess I'm getting the standard def version of this one.

I saw that, too. Criterion's cost for DVD production has really gone down much more than they originally led us to believe. It's too bad I'll be spending $26.99 more for the stinkin' blu-ray.

Awaiting my cancellation, but since I don't care for the film it doesn't bug me either way.

Isn't this one of Polanski's more high profile films. I've never seen the film, but I always sensed there was a lot of anticipation surrounding Criterion releasing this.

Sort of. It's definitely one of his more popular titles and it's a fun ride into his insane little brain. More successful than What? at least, but it's nothing more than that. It's a film I'll be happy to see again and own eventually, but it's not a great film by any means.

rrenault wrote:Isn't this one of Polanski's more high profile films. I've never seen the film, but I always sensed there was a lot of anticipation surrounding Criterion releasing this.

I'd been holding out for it since they released Knife in the Water. Despite the collective mehs, I've consulted the charts and is indeed categorized as Great. Possibly they're going by the European standards where I believe it's noted as Really Crackerjack Effort or Good Showing. I think it deserves special mention for reclaiming the toothbrush mustache alone, even if they can never be fully rehabilitated.

I've been hesitating about whether or not I should buy Repulsion and Cul-de-Sac or just keep my Anchor Bay reg 2 set. I really liked Knife in the Water but I didn't think much of the other two. They were entertaining and well crafted, but in the end they kinda left me unimpressed. Repulsion had great chilling moments but I thought the beginning was overlong and Deneuve doesn't do much to me as an actress. In fact, I always thought she was rather bad.

Hmm, I'd say her acting's gotten better over the years. She certainly wasn't bad in A Christmas Tale, but she's never brought down a film, and having a better actress certainly wouldn't have made Repulsion any better. I agree Repulsion is far from essential. I love the camera work though.

My two cents: Repulsion is Polanski's best film (or at least my favorite)

Second favorite here. The only reason I can conceive for Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby's extended popularity is that they're American.

Oh please: Rosemary's Baby is perfection.

I love Chinatown, but the film succeeds largely because of its script, and I've never been a fan of its noir pastiche (which is why I don't like most neo-noir). As for Rosemary's Baby, I can see what people like about it, but it didn't do much for me either. Of course I really like Frantic so don't listen to me.

I wasn't trying to say those two are bad, just that in his career they don't stand out as anything special. Real good popcorn entertainment and all of that. Stuff like The Tenant and Repulsion strike me as greater works both from a stylistic stand point and as personal statements.

Huh? I thought this film was highly anticipated. For me, Polanski's reputation has always rested on Knife, Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac and Rosemary's Baby, and it was all (gradually) downhill from there, with the noble exception of Chinatown. If you're exclusing those 60s films, I don't really see what you'd be basing his reputation on. (The Tenant? Really?)

Chinatown has always seemed to me to be one of those great anti-auteurist (multi-auteurist?) films along the lines of Night of the Hunter or Taxi Driver where you have the perfect confluence of director, screen writer, and actor each contributing their voices to a crowning moment for each. I think that's why it's harder to place in the Polanski canon than the rest.

I agree with you about his reputation resting on his '60s output zedz, though I would argue that his '00s have been quite a run as well.

I'm lazy right now so here's what I had to say earlier on The Tenant.

My Amazon order was cancelled...