The Criterion Collection

[jw007]

Originally Posted by vader4

I hope My Dinner with Andre gets an upgrade one of these days.

I just bought this at the last sale! I look forward to watching this.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

You lose regions of the original picture, but you gain resolution (more pixels devoted to any given thing you can see on screen), so it's a tradeoff. Obviously if the director's intended framing is known you want to go with that, but my understanding is that in the case of On the Waterfront it's a bit ambiguous.

My thoughts exactly.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by andsoitgoes

Extras are only worth it if you like the movie, you could have scores of extras on the White Chick blu, or Salo (yes I know those are slightly odd comparisons) but I wouldn't enjoy watching them even if I was given them for free.



I love Fincher, loved Fight Club, Se7en, The Game, Zodiac and heck, I can even put up with Panic Room and The Social Network was decent (what can you expect when you team up Fincher + Sorkin?) but BB was so hammy and schlocky that I could never get into it. I wanted to, I mean sheesh it had everything. I loved the actors and the story seemed incredible, but the tone and feel couldn't have turned me off more, it felt endlessly ridiculous.



For me, FC continues to blow me away. The commentary alone is worth watching, Fincher never disappoints there and Pitt/Norton have such amazing chemistry and banter that it ends up being intelligent, insightful and hilarious. Like another movie. For me, it wasn't do much about the stupid things the characters do, but the fact that everything is cranked to 11 makes me incredibly happy.

It's no Life and Death/Night of the Hunter, though it has a lot more depth if you look past the surface.

All the performances are excellent, as is the A/V quality. That gut force push that he can put into films is why I enjoy his direction and his films.



I'm glad Samantha could forgive him, but that's necessary for her healing.

He, on the other hand, is a sex offender that overpowered and abused a minor. He should have paid for his crimes, taken the punishment and that would have been that.

Instead, he took the cowardly option and fled.

Sexual predictors that are attracted to underage girls almost always offend again. Who knows what his money and influence buy him in the country he is in. He's never paid the price.

I will do everything I can to ensure he never gets a penny of my money. Maybe that sounds ridiculous to some people, but I have daughters. Daughters that are going into 3rd grade and are all of 4 years younger than the girl he raped.

She was 13, he was and is a coward.



ANYWAY

On another note, I've finally gotten through some more movies. For some reason I've been incredibly distracted and I need to give criterion films far more of my attention.

Of those I saw, Safety Last and Wild Strawberries are some of the most AMAZING FILMS.

Wild Strawberries had me a bit worries. I know, I know... Bergman and all, but the premise seemed a little slow. Nope, not. At all. I jumped on it the second I saw the connection with the brilliant Phantom Carriage, and I was not disappointed. I love that Bergman kept in his sort of "fantasy" elements like in The Seventh Seal, but still kept it very grounded. The casting was perfect, the writing was flawless, the direction amazing.

Saying Wild Strawberries is a brilliant film is like saying the sun is hot. The man does no wrong. As soon as my kids are back in school (next week thank GLOB!) I'll be digging into Fanny and Alexander. I'm incredibly excited!

Safety Last was another awesome movie. I don't know if I can put it in front of Modern Times or The Great Dictator, but it's still better than so much out there.

The Leopard is one of those that I took the jump on without having seen it, and nearly fell on my butt when I realized it was Burt freaking Lancaster as an Italian prince, and Alain Delon as the prince's nephew!

My only issue, and this was a huge problem with A Fistful of Dollars, is the terrible dubbing. I get having American/French actors in non American roles likely requires the dubbing, but I find it really hampers my ability to get fully immersed into the world.

But man, is it good! Again, the subject material could be a bit boring, but nope. I loved it!

It really does sound like none of you has even read or heard any if the facts and details of the Polanski case at all. I strongly recommend that you guys check out the documentary Wanted and Desired cause it's a real eye opener. The american media has been making it seem like he roofied her and raped her and then skipped town when it wasn't the situation at all.

Polanski was more than willing to co-opperate until the headline hungry judge (who only ever dealt with celebrity cases) re opened the case pissing off even the prosecuting attorneys. He did the year's house arrest which was the original sentence and half a year if psychiatric evaluation under the court ordrrs then the judge re-sentenced him because of public opinion.

In top of that the charge wasn't even rape it was unlawful sex with a minor. He didn't roofie her he offered her a quailude which she took willingly (him too) and they banged when high, meaning that it was basically a statutory rape with drugs piled onto it.
Sleazy? You betcha. Lynch mob and torch worthy? Hell no.
There's a reason why so many artists want the warrant dropped, because the case was unfair, not cause he made a few really good films.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by andsoitgoes

I'm glad Samantha could forgive him, but that's necessary for her healing.

He, on the other hand, is a sex offender that overpowered and abused a minor. He should have paid for his crimes, taken the punishment and that would have been that.

Instead, he took the cowardly option and fled.

Sexual predictors that are attracted to underage girls almost always offend again. Who knows what his money and influence buy him in the country he is in. He's never paid the price.

I will do everything I can to ensure he never gets a penny of my money. Maybe that sounds ridiculous to some people, but I have daughters. Daughters that are going into 3rd grade and are all of 4 years younger than the girl he raped.

She was 13, he was and is a coward.

Understandably, you have a beef with Polanski and I'm sure you have deep hatred for that man, but even though you will never spend a penny for any of his films, I still think its wrong to not watch any of his movies. I just cannot respect your opinion or even justify your hatred for a man who never did anything to you personally. A true film lover will not be afraid or morally against watching any film at least once, but I for one do not respect anyone who is not open to watching a movie based on the character of the filmmaker who created it.

Also, I was told earlier tonight that in South Carolina and New Hampshire, a 13 year old female could get married. And in Argentina, Spain, Japan, Niger, Comoros and Burkina Faso the age of consent for sex is 13 years old for females. In Angola, the age is 12 years old for females.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

It really does sound like none of you has even read or heard any if the facts and details of the Polanski case at all. I strongly recommend that you guys check out the documentary Wanted and Desired cause it's a real eye opener. The american media has been making it seem like he roofied her and raped her and then skipped town when it wasn't the situation at all.

Polanski was more than willing to co-opperate until the headline hungry judge (who only ever dealt with celebrity cases) re opened the case pissing off even the prosecuting attorneys. He did the year's house arrest which was the original sentence and half a year if psychiatric evaluation under the court ordrrs then the judge re-sentenced him because of public opinion.

In top of that the charge wasn't even rape it was unlawful sex with a minor. He didn't roofie her he offered her a quailude which she took willingly (him too) and they banged when high, meaning that it was basically a statutory rape with drugs piled onto it.
Sleazy? You betcha. Lynch mob and torch worthy? Hell no.
There's a reason why so many artists want the warrant dropped, because the case was unfair, not cause he made a few really good films.

I have watched Wanted and Desired. It was an eye opening documentary on the Polanski fiasco. I learned a lot and recommend anyone who is ignorant regarding Roman Polanski to watch this film. It sheds some light on the truth. Rather than forming your own biased opinion on a man you never met, check the facts first.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes, it can be a bit ambiguous when it comes to these different aspect ratios. I think its best to go with the "intended" aspect ratio the director wanted. If Stanley Kubrick wants us to watch The Shining in 1.33, then I will watch it in 1.33.

The Shining was framed for 1.85:1.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

It really does sound like none of you has even read or heard any if the facts and details of the Polanski case at all. I strongly recommend that you guys check out the documentary Wanted and Desired cause it's a real eye opener. The american media has been making it seem like he roofied her and raped her and then skipped town when it wasn't the situation at all.

Polanski was more than willing to co-opperate until the headline hungry judge (who only ever dealt with celebrity cases) re opened the case pissing off even the prosecuting attorneys. He did the year's house arrest which was the original sentence and half a year if psychiatric evaluation under the court ordrrs then the judge re-sentenced him because of public opinion.

In top of that the charge wasn't even rape it was unlawful sex with a minor. He didn't roofie her he offered her a quailude which she took willingly (him too) and they banged when high, meaning that it was basically a statutory rape with drugs piled onto it.
Sleazy? You betcha. Lynch mob and torch worthy? Hell no.
There's a reason why so many artists want the warrant dropped, because the case was unfair, not cause he made a few really good films.

The original charge did involve 'rape by use of drugs', he got it down with a plea bargain, and had five of the charges dropped.

And if you think it's OK for a 40something to give a 13 year old champagne and drugs and then sleep with her, willing or not, then your moral compass is set somewhere different to mine. But, regardless, you're ignoring the victims claims that the act was non-consensual and accepting the accused's claims for some reason, but even if she has been lying all these years, Polanski still knew she was thirteen, so still chose to break that law knowingly.

On top of that, one of the key people in the documentary has since recanted his story, saying he lied.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Dragun

The Shining was framed for 1.85:1.

"It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview: "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

Taken from:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/#n1s11

Also, I found an older thread about The Shining aspect ratios: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=82750

I don't want to open another can of worms, but I'm still never sure which aspect ratio was fully intended.

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by jw007

"It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview: "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

Taken from:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/#n1s11

Also, I found an older thread about The Shining aspect ratios: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=82750

Regardless of what's posted online, his films were shown in 1.85 in the US, and he knew that. Hence, the storyboard above that specifically states 1.85 framing. He safe framed for 1.33 for home video, but that was secondary to 1.85.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Regardless of what's posted online, his films were shown in 1.85 in the US, and he knew that. Hence, the storyboard above that specifically states 1.85 framing. He safe framed for 1.33 for home video, but that was secondary to 1.85.

Okay, thanks. End of story.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Regardless of what's posted online, his films were shown in 1.85 in the US, and he knew that. Hence, the storyboard above that specifically states 1.85 framing. He safe framed for 1.33 for home video, but that was secondary to 1.85.

Exactly. Kubrick hated black bars on home video presentations, so he protected for 1.33 on his later films. I imagine he'd be just as irked to see a 1.33 transfer of one of his films pillarboxed on a 1.78 display as he was to see 1.85 transfers letterboxed on the old 1.33 displays.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by Edward Grug III

The original pe by use of drugs', he got it down with a plea charges dropped.

And if you think it's OK for a 40something to give a 13 year old champagne and drugs and then sleep with her, willing or not, then your moral compass is set somewhere different to mine. But, regardless, you're ignoring the victims claims that the act was non-consensual and accepting the accused's claims for some reason, but even if she has been lying all these years, Polanski still knew she was thirteen, so still chose to break that law knowingly.

On top of that, one of the key people in the documentary has since recanted his story, saying he lied.

Not saying it was right and I agree that giving drugs and alcohol to a thirteen year old (and then sleeping them) is wrong as its still taking advantage.
Forgot anything about plea bargins though as its been a while since I'd seen it...
My main point though is that none of us actually knows what happened and that it seems ridiculous to completely crucify him without knowing any of the facts, especially when the victim states they want it dropped.
I don't know who's telling the truth in the case and refuse to pass judgement on either party.
I may have to re watch it myself to refresh my memory on some of the details to actually form a better opinion.

Which person has stated he lied though?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jw007

I just cannot respect your opinion or even justify your hatred for a man who never did anything to you personally.

Does anybody have that Godwin guy's email address?

I need a waiver.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by octagon

Does anybody have that Godwin guy's email address?

I need a waiver.

Haha! Yeah, I had that thought too.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

Which person has stated he lied though?

David Wells has recanted his portion of the documentary.

"'I lied,' Wells told me yesterday, referring to his comments in the movie that he told the judge how he could renege on a plea-bargain agreement and send Polanski back to jail after he had been released from a 42-day psychiatric evaluation—the heart of Polanski’s claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. 'I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.'"

Now his recanting sounds fishy to me too, so in the end, I dunno, except that he is obviously an unreliable witness whatever happened.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

David Wells has recanted his portion of the documentary.

"'I lied,' Wells told me yesterday, referring to his comments in the movie that he told the judge how he could renege on a plea-bargain agreement and send Polanski back to jail after he had been released from a 42-day psychiatric evaluation—the heart of Polanski’s claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. 'I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.'"

Now his recanting sounds fishy to me too, so in the end, I dunno, except that he is obviously an unreliable witness whatever happened.

Yeah I was reading about this in the last while. He really could or couldn't have, hard to tell.
Luckily that still wasn't the part I was thinking of, I was remembering the discussion in it about the judge talking about the case outside of the courtroom and getting a lot of people telling him he "needed to get him" or something to that effect.
There's a lot of weird things with this case.

[14728]

I still don't want to watch his films, because every time you buy one of his films, you're supporting a man who gave alcohol and drugs to a middle schooler, and then they had sex. I do NOT want to support any man like that.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by 14728

I still don't want to watch his films, because every time you buy one of his films, you're supporting a man who gave alcohol and drugs to a middle schooler, and then they had sex. I do NOT want to support any man like that.

I guess I'll have to buy two copies of Polanski movies from here on out

[deepbreathsanddeath]

If one won't watch any movie directed by Roman Polanski due to what he did, what's your stance on those who happily act in Polanski's movies? I understand why you wouldn't want to support him but I imagine that moral stance also means you can't watch any movie starring someone who DOES support him by acting in his movies.

Kind of means you also shouldn't see any movie that features a cinematographer, editor etc who has worked with him since the controversy and still supports him. That's got to really limit which movies you can actually see. They didn't sexually abuse anyone (to our knowledge) but by the sounds of it, you would feel disgusted if you knowingly supported someone like him.

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the people who happily work with him despite what he apparently did. I'm not trying to stir s*** up but if someone's moral stance is that they can't support a statutory rapist how do they justify supporting people who are okay with it?

Just curious.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

It's weird that I mention that Carnival of Souls will likely be getting upgraded soon and every one goes on about Benjamin Button lol

I'm right there with you on Carnival of Souls. I'd love to upgrade my Criterion DVD soon.