Dressed to Kill (1980)

[Portista]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Sadly, Dressed To Kill DOP Ralf Bode passed away almost 15 years go.

He'll be turning in his grave.

[Member-222782]

Ugh, I want nothing to do with this washed out, sickly green abomination. Removing this from my wishlist

[nitin]

caps definitely dont look good, but can we at least wait until another site apart from dvdbeaver produces some, because Gary isnt always on the ball.

[AaronSCH]

Looks like I might have to make a repurchase of the MGM disc. The vertical stretch is far from subtle and the image looks too bright and "washed out" to me. However, it's also obvious that the color was turned up a bit on the MGM disc—blood looks laughably phony during the elevator attack. I will wait and see because as the controversy over "Goodfellas" bears out, you can't judge a release by random screen caps. I'll wait to hear a few reliable opinions before I make a decision. This is the last time I trade in a disc before I buy the re-issue—"new" doesn't necessarily mean improved. I'm just pleased "The Black Stallion" didn't disappoint.

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by themp3000

Children of Paradise and Earrings weren't in-house restoration jobs though. That's where the problem exists is with Pathe. They can't really be blamed for something they had no real control over.

They could have refused to release the blu-rays. Unless there was some provision in their contract that compelled them to release them, which seems unusual, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt since I don't know for sure

CoP is the worst case of over-processing that I have ever seen. It amazes me that anyone, anywhere, at any stage of production, would have approved that mess. Although, IF the Beaver screencaps are accurate, then that might take a prize in the "Worst Screwup, Squishing/Stretching" category.

[slimdude]

What? Not Criterion, the alleged superior A/V quality of Blu-rays!

[nitin]

Originally Posted by obscurelabel

They could have refused to release the blu-rays. Unless there was some provision in their contract that compelled them to release them, which seems unusual, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt since I don't know for sure

CoP is the worst case of over-processing that I have ever seen. It amazes me that anyone, anywhere, at any stage of production, would have approved that mess. Although, IF the Beaver screencaps are accurate, then that might take a prize in the "Worst Screwup, Squishing/Stretching" category.

I think with CoP and Madame De, they saw the master(s) from France after having already paid for the licensing etc.

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by nitin

I think with CoP and Madame De, they saw the master(s) from France after having already paid for the licensing etc.

That may be the case. Although it seems imprudent to pay for the rights without some provision to walk away if the master is deemed unacceptable. But as I said I don't know the details so I can't say what their options were.

[WesReviews]

Wow... very odd that Criterion would botch a transfer, but that is very clearly the case here.

Will be buying the old MGM disc instead.

[oliviergregoire]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

The coloring seems fine to me. IMO the other releases seem too rich. I'm not really able to notice any stretching. But to me, I love the framing and having the bit more information Criterion provides. It makes it seem like the other 2 versions were purposely cropped a bit. Screenshots are difficult to really tell sometimes for me. Honestly, I am not trying to make waves, but I do like how Criterion's looks. Even Gary Tooze says in retrospect that he likes the changes in the Criterion version.

I post this 2 years ago, I don't know if the color timing of the Criterion is correct but I alwas had a problem with the color timing of the MGM/Arrow/Carlotta editions:

Originally Posted by oliviergregoire

Is it me or the color timing on Dressed To Kill is a bit too much of green/cyan?

It's clear on the mgm logo at the beginning.

[tama]

I emailed mulvaney@criterion.com about the issue. I'd suggest everyone do the same inquiring about the issue.

[cakefactory]

Does anyone know if all the directors give any real input into these kinds of things? Like, is it possible Criterion did a blue tinted mis-proportioned thing and said to Brian De Palma "so this is what we've got so far, do you want to take a look at it" and he just said WHATEVER, I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS, I APPROVE" and they just stopped at that point since to "fix" it would have been to go against "approval?" If the first thing they brought to him looked identical to the previous transfer would that have also gotten director approval? Or is there some evidence that the director actually takes a look at various options and directs them towards which he prefers?

[BrandonJF]

yeah, I can't see how this can be right. We know Michael Caine's head doesn't look like that and it sure doesn't match the old theatrical trailer. I guess the counterpoint is that everything has always been wrong, DePalma always wanted the image to be squeezed, and it's finally been corrected 35 years later.

[PowellPressburger]

I think Criterion does the transfer and DePalma signs off on it honestly. Who knows what monitor he is even using when he checks it out. haha I'd assume he came into the office though, esp for the interview.

Director approved really means nothing these days, it usually means it has been altered more negatively.

[cad1981]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Does anyone know if all the directors give any real input into these kinds of things? Like, is it possible Criterion did a blue tinted mis-proportioned thing and said to Brian De Palma "so this is what we've got so far, do you want to take a look at it" and he just said WHATEVER, I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS, I APPROVE" and they just stopped at that point since to "fix" it would have been to go against "approval?" If the first thing they brought to him looked identical to the previous transfer would that have also gotten director approval? Or is there some evidence that the director actually takes a look at various options and directs them towards which he prefers?

Directors can be wrong - it's not the first time that's happened. Does everyone remember the awful 2009 Friedkin-approved "French Connection" blu-ray transfer? That was director-approved. When the gap between a film's production and its blu-ray release is nearly 4 decades (as was the case with French Connection and also Dressed to Kill), it's entirely possible that a director can have incorrect or misguided memories of what that film originally looked like.

[BobbyPeru]

Originally Posted by themp3000

Children of Paradise and Earrings weren't in-house restoration jobs though. That's where the problem exists is with Pathe. They can't really be blamed for something they had no real control over.

As for Dressed to Kill, this transfer and resto was supervised and approved by De Palma. Just for posturing sake, Fisher King was only approved by Gilliam but not supervised. The key to these recent-ish films are those words. I don't think Criterion can exactly be at fault here for something De Palma supervised and approved.

I don't think anything has happened to Criterion.

Criterion can be blamed because they released a crappy transfer with their name on it. They have the right to refuse the master. Synapse and Arrow have done it. Criterion has released a few shoddy releases in the last few years. I don't understand why some people think they are the elite and can do no wrong. This isn't the days of Laser Discs or DVD. Many companies are releasing excellent product now.

[themp3000]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I think Criterion does the transfer and DePalma signs off on it honestly. Who knows what monitor he is even using when he checks it out. haha I'd assume he came into the office though, esp for the interview.

Director approved really means nothing these days, it usually means it has been altered more negatively.

Except you aren't reading the finer details here. This transfer was not only approved but also supervised by De Palma. You'd have a leg to stand on if it was just approved by him. This sort of thing happens all the time, believe it or not, with artists and such, they look at a past work and decide to tweak it because they don't like the look 20-30 some odd years later.

[crazyman]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

Even Gary Tooze says in retrospect that he likes the changes in the Criterion version.

Tooze would say that to a box of oreos if it had the Criterion sticker on it.

[WesReviews]

If it were just a color issue, yeah... that can be debated, absolutely.

But we're dealing with a STRETCHED image. That alone proves that this is a botched transfer and not how the film was intended to be seen. There is no "opinion" as to whether a stretched image is correct or incorrect. IT IS INCORRECT.

That is FACT.

[PowellPressburger]

You know PRO-B has to have this disc by now...... waiting for his opinion.