The "Margaret Blu-ray" is just plain lazy... - Review

[The_Basterd]

Margaret Blu-ray

Margaret Blu-ray Review

I just blind bought the movie today after reading all the RAVES, opened it up, and saw... ONLY the DVD disc has the Extended Cut (which I heard is the much better version), on the 2-disc blu-ray set? Uh.... Why?

I just payed $30 and they couldn't even put the extended cut on the blu-ray disc. Such BULL.

This is just plain lazy.

[remake]

Doesn't it list the features on the back? You should've looked before buying it.

[The_Basterd]

Originally Posted by victim

Doesn't it list the features on the back? You should've looked before buying it.

I got it off Amazon...

[RodneyOz]

There's speculation that the longer cut might not exist in a form suitable for HD. I'm extremely glad that the longer cut is now available to the public, but I have to confess it only being on the DVD makes me wait and see... whereas if it was on Blu it'd have been a day one purchase/preorder for me.

[Veronica Mars]

I'll be returning mine then. That's completely misleading considering this is an Amazon exclusive. The extended cut shouldn't be mentioned on the cover of the blu ray release like that.

Everyone who bought it would assume the blu-ray had both versions. The dvd is usually just something companies toss in so you can have one of both.

And being that it's an exclusive for Amazon, this is one time when it's not definitely not ok that they don't have very specific product details on the page.

I almost never watch dvds now and if that happens to be my preferred cut, then too bad. This isn't essential to my movie collection enough for me to watch the dvd when I want to watch the extended version.

It's not like they made it seem like the extended version was a throwaway bonus feature for the dvd. I assumed I paid that ridiculously high price because Amazon got exclusive rights to sell a film quite a few people have been clamoring for in HD. Not one version in HD and one in SD.

Wow, this really tops off a sh**y day in fine style. I knew I should have waited a few more days before pulling the trigger on this.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by RodneyOz

There's speculation that the longer cut might not exist in a form suitable for HD.

Indeed. There was clearly not a lot of money to put the Extended cut together and many reports say there is evidence of the sound mixing being unfinished in some scenes. My guess is that it was created from rough cut footage originally assembled a few years ago (in SD) and there wasn't enough money or time to re-assemble that footage from the original film elements. They've had a couple of Q&A screenings of the extended version recently, but by all accounts they just showed the DVD. The fact that the DVD contained Extended and the Blu-ray Theatrical WAS announced by Fox, but I agree the cover is misleading.

Having said that, I'm not sure the Extended version is actually going to be better. Lonergan has not called it his 'preferred' or 'director's' cut of the film, just an alternative version which is more 'explicit' than 'suggestive' (IMO - not always a good thing). I loved the Theatrical, even though it does have some narrative problems towards the final third. However, the Extended version doesn't just add in a few deleted scenes to make the narrative make a bit more sense, it apparently changes the whole tone of the film and makes almost all of the scenes of an already long film longer.

From the TimeOut review of the Extended Version:

There are now lengthy sequences in which bystanders' dialogue—or jackhammers or traffic noise—drowns out the main characters. Much of Nico Muhly's score has been replaced with opera selections, a choice that's thematically consistent but drastically alters the emotional pitch of several scenes.

If you've seen no version of Margaret at all, I'd recommend starting with the smoother theatrical cut and then seeing this one; together, they enhance each other, and provide a more complete view of the Margaret that might have been. But I'm not sure if I'd have recognized the movie as one of the great contemporary films if I'd seen only the longer version. It's a rougher, less structured, more alienating movie—in some ways closer to the Cassavetes comparison that many critics made.

Other reviews at places like IndieWire and some tweets I've seen are not negative, exactly, but they aren't saying it's clearly the superior version.

My worry is that whilst the narrative may seem more cohesive, it may be at the expense of the punchy emotional impact of the Theatrical. Which was like, the greatest thing about it when I originally saw it.

I'm going to watch the Extended one day, obviously I don't know how I will feel about it. But what I'm trying to say is that I think the Theatrical might be what people should watch first anyway. And that if it is, indeed, the superior version of the film then I'm glad that's the one we have on Blu-ray.

[Veronica Mars]

Originally Posted by nametag

Indeed. There was clearly not a lot of money to put the Extended cut together and many reports say there is evidence of the sound mixing not sounding finished in some scenes. My guess is that it was created from rough cut footage originally assembled a few years ago (in SD) and there wasn't enough money or time to put together the extended version from original film elements. They've had a couple of Q&A screenings of the extended version recently, but by all accounts they just showed the DVD. The fact that the DVD contained Extended and the Blu-ray Theatrical WAS announced by Fox, but I agree the cover is misleading.

Having said that, I'm not sure the Extended version is actually going to be better. Lonergan has not called it his 'preferred' or 'director's' cut of the film, just an alternative version which is more 'explicit' than 'suggestive' (IMO - not always a good thing). I loved the Theatrical, even though it does have some narrative problems towards the final third. However, the Extended version doesn't just add in a few deleted scenes to make the narrative make a bit more sense, it apparently changes the whole tone of the film and makes almost all of the scenes of an already long film longer.

From the TimeOut review of the Extended Version:



Other reviews at places like IndieWire and some tweets I've seen are not negative, exactly, but they aren't saying it's clearly the superior version.

My worry is that whilst the narrative may seem more cohesive, it may be at the expense of the punchy emotional impact of the Theatrical. Which was like, the greatest thing about it when I originally saw it.

I'm going to watch the Extended one day, obviously I don't know how I will feel about it. But what I'm trying to say is that I think the Theatrical might be what people should watch first anyway. And that if it is, indeed, the superior version of the film then I'm glad that's the one we have on Blu-ray.

And what if it's not? That's kind of a big if, because if you do prefer the extended version, you won't own it on bd and if you want to see the film in HD, you'd have to watch the cut you found to be the inferior one.

I certainly maintain the cover makes it seem like we're getting both on blu and being an exclusive there's no excuse for them to have not listed the info and let the buyers make their decision with all the information.

If you saw a combo box with the same cover on any other bd, you'd expect the blu to have both of the cuts.

I've read a lot of things people who saw the movie wrote and I really did assume the high price was due to getting something that a lot of people weren't sure if they'd ever see at all.

If the entire "other" choice is in SD, at the very least, no matter what reviews stated about which cut was "better", I would have waited until the price dropped.

I paid $28 because I'd been excited about both cuts and thought I was lucky to be getting them both on bd.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by Veronica Mars

And what if it's not? That's kind of a big if, because if you do prefer the extended version, you won't own it on bd and if you want to see the film in HD, you'd have to watch the cut you found to be the inferior one.

I certainly maintain the cover makes it seem like we're getting both on blu and being an exclusive there's no excuse for them to have not listed the info and let the buyers make their decision with all the information.

If you saw a combo box with the same cover on any other bd, you'd expect the blu to have both of the cuts.

I've read a lot of things people who saw the movie wrote and I really did assume the high price was due to getting something that a lot of people weren't sure if they'd ever see at all.

If the entire "other" choice is in SD, at the very least, no matter what reviews stated about which cut was "better", I would have waited until the price dropped.

I paid $28 because I'd been excited about both cuts and thought I was lucky to be getting them both on bd.

Fair enough. It IS really expensive! We are lucky to have at least the Theatrical on BD at all tbh. I'm still annoyed it was cancelled in the UK when we generated loads of support for the film and I think it made more money here!

[tylerdurden10]

I thought that this was already known that the extended cut was only on the DVD

The original article talking about this release clearly advised that already, it shouldn't have been much of a shock to anyone

[MikeScott]

Originally Posted by RodneyOz

There's speculation that the longer cut might not exist in a form suitable for HD. I'm extremely glad that the longer cut is now available to the public, but I have to confess it only being on the DVD makes me wait and see... whereas if it was on Blu it'd have been a day one purchase/preorder for me.

I doubt this will ever see a separate Blu-ray release for the extended cut. I would not hold my breath.

I thought it was common knowledge it was only on the DVD. I read that back when it was announced. Apparently the reason why it was only released on DVD is because the studio wanted nothing to do with it or something.

Yes it's disappointing but like Rodney said maybe the longer cut doesn't exist in a format suitable for HD. At least we get it period. Besides, Scorsese helped put together the theatrical cut. Who knows, maybe it's the better version. I mean, the film is certainly already long enough the way it is.

Anyway, I want to see it, but the reason I didn't blind buy it is because of the price. I'm sure it won't be long before it drops. Even if it had both versions in HD I don't think it would be worth it.

[spanky87]

This is only an amazon exclusive? HMV in canada has in store stock for this, but the price is $39.99!

Edit: Actually its available all around Canada, Future Shop has it for $29.99. So I guess its only available on Amazon in USA.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by The_Basterd

I just blind bought the movie today after reading all the RAVES, opened it up, and saw... ONLY the DVD disc has the Extended Cut (which I heard is the much better version), on the 2-disc blu-ray set? Uh.... Why?

I just payed $30 and they couldn't even put the extended cut on the blu-ray disc. Such BULL.

Our listing title stated that the EC was on the DVD (posted by me) but someone came and changed that to say "Theatrical and Extended" a couple of days ago. (But I already work 3 shifts here so I didn't notice until now. I changed it back. Sorry you experienced a disappointment.


Margaret Blu-ray Review

[Veronica Mars]

I don't think everyone should be expected to check things out. If you saw this in the store these days, you'd assume both cuts were on the blu.

I thought that was a great review. I like reviewers who don't attack movies that they don't really like so much and give very balanced reviews. The guy that does most of the theatrical reviews is literally the worst I've even seen on the net, which is why I won't use his name.

Even the way the reviewer summed up things by stating the price was high, but probably not so much if you enjoyed the film was a fine way of wrapping things up on a movie that only got a 3 and even that might have been a little generous based on how the reviewer seemed to feel about the film.

I'm going to slog on and watch both cuts within a week. If I agree that the theatrical is the better cut, I'll keep the film. If I someone prefer the extended cut (hard to imagine and the things I've read about it, but you never know), then I'm returning the movie because of the box cover and I don't think Amazon will have a problem with it.

I'm guessing I'll keep it, but if the film I want to see over again is in SD, then it goes. There are way too many other films I keep on dvd that are better that I keep waiting to upgrade on to add a new DVD to my collection.

[slasherdisc]

They need to just drop these combo packs all together!

[tylerdurden10]

Originally Posted by visualsynth

They need to just drop these combo packs all together!

Well in this case that wouldn't make sense since the DVD copy has the extended cut on it

[frozenhamster]

The fact is, the Extended Cut only exists in SD. Unless some big investment is put into the film, it's unlikely to ever be done up properly with an HD transfer. If you love the film and the Extended Cut is your preferred version then SD is the best available quality, and thus should be acceptable in lieu of it not existing at all. If you prefer the theatrical then you're lucky that it's there in very good quality. I'll be picking the film up, and I'm sure whenever I re-watch it I'll alternate between cuts anyway. Both are excellent and very worthy versions of a brilliant film.

[Sons Of Sparda]

Did this movie come with a slipcover?

[hidef al]

Originally Posted by The_Basterd

I just blind bought the movie today after reading all the RAVES, opened it up, and saw... ONLY the DVD disc has the Extended Cut (which I heard is the much better version), on the 2-disc blu-ray set? Uh.... Why?

What store did you buy it from??? Can't find it anywhere in my area.

[Sons Of Sparda]

Originally Posted by hidef al

What store did you buy it from??? Can't find it anywhere in my area.

I believe he said off of amazon.It is the third post on the page.

[hidef al]

OK. Thanks. Did not see that post