criterionforum.org

Best Buy is selling this for $4.99 this week, so I picked one up. They had a bunch of full-screen editions and only two widescreen editions left, one labeled the "10th Anniversary Edition" (dated 2000) and the other sporting different artwork that says simply "Anniversary Edition" (dated 2005).

Well, I got the 2005 edition, and when I cracked it open, lo and behold, the disc has "10th anniversary edition" printed on it. Even the insert was lifted from the 10th anniversary edition, only the case's exterior artwork was changed - the disc I got was damaged, so I went back and exchanged it for the one labeled "10th Anniversary Edition" on the outside and basically confirmed all of this.

[They also had a special tin-can edition - retail is $5 more, and in addition to the tin can, I think you get some photo cards, nothing exciting.]

I've seen bits and pieces of this over the years, but the last time I saw this in its entirety, I was in middle school. I liked it then, but I wasn't CRAZY about it...I have to say, time has been very kind because I really dig it now. It doesn't seem crude or primitive the way, say, Beetlejuice looks now, and it's much more organic - I dig Beetlejuice but it seemed a little flat and hollow under that love-it-or-hate-it art direction. Rosenbaum thought this was too sentimental (called it Spielbergian, I think), but it didn't seem that way to me. I mean, it does become sentimental, but not in a cloying, saccharine way like, say, the Harry Potter movies.

hearthesilence wrote:I've seen bits and pieces of this over the years, but the last time I saw this in its entirety, I was in middle school. I liked it then, but I wasn't CRAZY about it...I have to say, time has been very kind because I really dig it now. It doesn't seem crude or primitive the way, say, Beetlejuice looks now, and it's much more organic - I dig Beetlejuice but it seemed a little flat and hollow under that love-it-or-hate-it art direction. Rosenbaum thought this was too sentimental (called it Spielbergian, I think), but it didn't seem that way to me. I mean, it does become sentimental, but not in a cloying, saccharine way like, say, the Harry Potter movies.

I agree. I think that "heartfelt" is more applicable to the tone of this movie. I really do feel that Burton is being sincere with the emotions he's conveying and how Edward is his cinematic surrogate.

Even though it is cited so often, the scene where Winona Ryder's character twirls around in the snowstorm created by Edward's sculpting is a truly wonderful moment in the movie. I have always felt that her best performances were in Burton's films.

I remember seeing this in theaters for the first time and being shocked at seeing a pumped up Anthony Michael Hall as the film's baddie. Quite a world away from The Breakfast Club!

At it's most essential level Edward Scissorhands is a fairy tale, and in light of this I concur that "sentimental" is an unfair criticism. Fairy tales generally don't operate on subtlety and emotional restraint.

I haven't watched this film in a long time, but I imagine I would still love it as much as I used to. It's a completely personal journey in a world that Burton clearly understands inside and out, and like many good fairy tales it manages to be funny, sad, tragic and joyous altogether. You can tell Elfman felt it too, as this is definitely one of his greatest scores.

(And OT, I know, but I would contend that only the first two Harry Potter films are cloying and saccharine.)

Dammit, the PAL DVD overseas actually looks better:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/dvdcomparison ... hands.html

Does Fox actually 'smear' its DVD's?