51 Brazil

Message

denti alligator · #76 Post by **denti alligator** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:39 pm

So no trade-in possible, eh?
Bummer.

At least Matt got an answer to his inquiry. (I'm still waiting for mine.)

Gigi M. · #77 Post by **Gigi M.** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:47 pm

Video ****

This is a stellar anamorphic transfer from Criterion...quite an improvement over Universal's disc. The images are so sharp, crisp and clean, and the colors so bright and natural, I found myself noticing many details in the film I'd never noticed before. The film boasts the correct running length of 142 minutes, which is actually the same as the Universal disc, who had the incorrect running time printed on the box.

arsonfilms · #78 Post by **arsonfilms** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:47 pm

I could be wrong (and I want to be fair, so if I am wrong, please speak up) but I'm pretty sure this review is identical to the review that had been written previously, except for the use of the word anamorphic. I think this may actually be a false review along the lines of the recent one for Seven Samurai. I don't want to say Criterion wasted a review copy, but um...

colinr0380 · #79 Post by **colinr0380** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:22 am

arsonfilms wrote: I don't want to say Criterion wasted a review copy, but um...

You can say it! Why can't the forum members get the free discs instead! We are guaranteed to watch them! And we don't hold back if we find a problem either!

#80 Post by **Matt** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:27 am

colinr0380 wrote:
arsonfilms wrote: I don't want to say Criterion wasted a review copy, but um...
You can say it! Why can't the forum members get the free discs instead! We are guaranteed to watch them! And we don't hold back if we find a problem either!

For all the devotion, free publicity, and free market research we've given them, you'd think we would get something besides a single Christmas card.

Gigi M. · #81 Post by **Gigi M.** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:33 am

Well said Matt. You and the other admins should be the first one to get a free copy of every title. Why Criterion hasn't done this, is beneath me. This is best source / publicity their asses ever going to have.

Napoleon · #82 Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:57 am

But all we ever do is moan and rip them to shreds.

I doubt whether they've had a positive post of anyone (baring Michael) on this forum in the last 18 months.

keeproductions · #83 Post by **keeproductions** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:31 pm

This one also irritates me for pure sloppiness:

Features **

I always enjoy listening to Terry Gilliam's commentaries, and he provides a good one for this director-approved Criterion edition. He speaks generously of his memories of making the film and his struggles to get his vision seen. There is also an essay by critic Jack Mathews, whose efforts helped get Gilliam's version of Brazil to the public.

Not even a mention that this disc is actually part of a larger boxset of some of the best extra features ever put on the format.

solaris72 · #84 Post by **solaris72** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:26 pm

arsonfilms wrote:I could be wrong (and I want to be fair, so if I am wrong, please speak up) but I'm pretty sure this review is identical to the review that had been written previously, except for the use of the word anamorphic. I think this may actually be a false review along the lines of the recent one for Seven Samurai. I don't want to say Criterion wasted a review copy, but um...

It is indeed more or less identical, here is the Feb. 17 2001 version of the page, as archived by archive.org:

DVD Movie Central wrote:This is a stellar transfer from Criterion. I had hoped for an improvement over Universal's disc, but I didn?t expect it could be as good as this. The images are so sharp, crisp and clean, and the colors so bright and natural, I found myself noticing many details in the film I'd never noticed before. Sadly, it's not anamorphic, but it?s still a triumph of quality. This disc would be worth the extra money just for this transfer. The film boasts the correct running length of 142 minutes, which is actually the same as the Universal disc, who had the incorrect running time printed on the box.

Cinesimilitude · #85 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:59 pm

n w wrote:But all we ever do is moan and rip them to shreds.

I doubt whether they've had a positive post of anyone (baring Michael) on this forum in the last 18 months.

thats a load of brown and you know it. we praise them plenty, its just that whenever someone bitches, word travels fast. everyone always wants to talk about something negative. If you get pissed off at something, you tell a lot more people about it (or in this case, post a lot more about it) than something you love.

Napoleon · #86 Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:47 am

SncDthMnky wrote:
n w wrote:But all we ever do is moan and rip them to shreds.

I doubt whether they've had a positive post of anyone (baring Michael) on this forum in the last 18 months.
thats a load of brown and you know it. we praise them plenty, its just that whenever someone bitches, word travels fast. everyone always wants to talk about something negative. If you get pissed off at something, you tell a lot more people about it (or in this case, post a lot more about it) than something you love.

Tongue was in cheek when I wrote that.

Cinesimilitude · #87 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:27 am

sorry then, It's tough to gauge on this place sometimes.

scalesojustice · #88 Post by **scalesojustice** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:19 pm

the internet is the perfect place for sarcasm

Cinesimilitude · #89 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:00 pm

Body language is an important factor of communication, It'd just be nice to get a smiley once in a while, when throwing sarcasm into a discussion. godardslave is the perfect example, he uses sarcasm excellently. but then again, I kind of now know that every post he makes is sarcastic, so for him, no smilies are necessary.

#90 Post by **Matt** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:52 am

SncDthMnky wrote:It'd just be nice to get a smiley once in a while, when throwing sarcasm into a discussion. godardslave is the perfect example, he uses sarcasm excellently.

Napoleon · #91 Post by **Napoleon** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:35 am

SncDthMnky wrote:Body language is an important factor of communication, It'd just be nice to get a smiley once in a while, when throwing sarcasm into a discussion. godardslave is the perfect example, he uses sarcasm excellently. but then again, I kind of now know that every post he makes is sarcastic, so for him, no smilies are necessary.

Nice bit of sarcasm there. Very droll.

Gigi M. · #92 Post by **Gigi M.** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:45 am

Back cover and spine

Gigi M. · #93 Post by **Gigi M.** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:47 am

DVDTalk review

arsonfilms · #94 Post by **arsonfilms** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:35 pm

The Beaver's comparison is up.

Anonymous · #95 Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:34 am

i received the re-mastered 3-disc box set a few days ago. it had no pamphlet in the case of the first disc. i assume that the essay by jack matthews would be here because i don't think my set has a jack matthews essay. the set feels incomplete. i don't think i'm the only one with this problem. some people on home theatre forum's review thread for the single disc re-master have made the same complaint. is this an isolated incident or a widespread problem?

Rich Malloy · #96 Post by **Rich Malloy** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:18 pm

I've also seen quite a few missing booklet reports on DVD TALK. This appears to be a very widespread problem.

arsonfilms · #97 Post by **arsonfilms** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:17 pm

I listed the differences between the old and new packaging on the artwork thread, but it wasn't until I started reading comments about the Mathews essay that I started to get curious about the rest of it. Noting that the copy just mentions an essay - not a booklet - I assumed I'd just pop the DVD in and there I'd find the essay as video text. This was not the case.

What I discovered though, was the old menu with an option to view the color bars. This means that the single disc and triple disc packages were authored seperately. A new DLT was created for the single disc, but not necessarily for the triple. Although this does not conclusively say anything at all, there is a very real possibility that Criterion simply reissued the same discs with slightly updated packaging. This seems like a slim possibility, given that it IS possible to use the old menus for a new DLT, but it seems pretty odd that they'd even bother to intentionally NOT update the menus.

Unfortunately, I don't have a widescreen TV, so I can't tell. Would someone with a widescreen TV and/or someone with access to both of the new releases mind checking it all out just to make sure there wasn't an error in authoring? I've seen this happen before to other companies, and it would make sense in this case if the focus was on creating the single disc release.

Anonymous · #98 Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:03 pm

The details of the new 3-disc set need clarified. Time is kind of important because there are restrictions on the number of days you have to return an item. And some people probably pre-ordered the set at a discount price, so getting a refund of the initial cost doesn't seem fair because they'll probably have to pay a higher price once the problem is solved. I ordered it from Amazon.ca for $30 less than what it is now (no exaggeration).

And the style of the menus is suspicious. I don't have a widescreen tv so I'd also like somebody with one to say whether or not the movies are anamorphic. I would assume they are because there are standard rectangular 16:9 logos on the boxes and it is marked in a few places saying that it's a 2006 reprint. Keeping the old menus might be needed to follow the design of the boxes.

And what does the new pamphlet for the single disc release look like? Would it match the new 3-disc set? There are table of contents inserts in discs 51.2 and 51.3 that are off-white with black writing. I would hope that the pamphlet meant for disc 51.1 (if there is one) would follow this design (or something that works) for the sake of continuity. And the new pamphlet actually wouldn't be completely like the old one. Officially, it would probably have a new publishing date printed on it, also updates on information regarding the improved anamorphic transfer, etc. Need explanations.

daniel p · #99 Post by **daniel p** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:41 pm

krb83 wrote:Officially, it would probably have a new publishing date printed on it, also updates on information regarding the improved anamorphic transfer, etc. Need explanations.

I don't have the disc yet, but I am 100% certain is it 16:9. Just read some reviews (dvdbeaver, dvdtalk).

Cinesimilitude · #100 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:21 pm

all you have to do is check for the 16:9 logo on the back of your movie discs case. If it says that, it's the new one. you could also pop it in a dvd-rom and check the video source. also, if you post the serial numbers on the back of it, I can tell you if they match my non-anamorphic copy or not. your choice.