Let's not be so harsh. I'll wait for Gary to get down on these and start comparing them. One thing this set has running for it is the extras -- carefully produced featurettes for ALL the films included and ALL come with the original theatrical trailer, which is always a plus with me.

The problem with Tristana is that no restored copy might yet be available and Optimum had to make do with what they were handed by Studio Canal. However, they improved on it by offering an anamorphic transfer which the french DVD did not have. The difference in resolution might not be that apparent but it's an improvement, nonetheless.

The biggest problem seems to be the Obscure (...) disc and I wonder if all the discs come with that audio problem with them or if it's just a first pressing type of case. It would be nice to hear back from Optimum about this.

But in the end, if all you are getting are 6 fine discs out of 8, I'm not the one complaining (too much, at least) because the price seems to be right. I'm still planning to buy this set but like I said, I'll wait for some DVDBeaver reviews and comparisons. I'll bet he'll have a field day with this!

DVDTimes reviews and visually compares the new edition of Belle de Jour with the OOP Warner one.

I am really debating buying the Bunuel set as I am devout fan, however, it seems more and more that it is really not worth the money. From what I've gathered from previous posts most of the transfers pale when compared to either the Criterion release or the Studio Canal release. The optional rather then permanent subs is nice but I will probably never watch these films without subs. The big (and I mean 99%) selling point for me now are the docs or featurettes that are included with each title. Can anyone comment on the quality of these, are they thoughtful and informative/interesting or are they just 20+ plus minutes of Bio recap/"Bunuel is influential"/description of scenes type crap that I can do without?

I haven't got the set but those docs seem to be substantial, with interviews with Jean-Claude Carriere and others close to Bunuel. But that's just my guess.

My advice to you Cobalt is the same I'm giving myself: wait for some DVDBeaver's comparisons before I take the plunge.

It certainly would - still no reply though (and I wasn't rude to them). If I don't hear anything by Wednesday then I'm going to send it back for a refund, especially since That Obscure Object has messed up audio and I can't play 2 of the dvds anyway. I may buy it again some time in the future if I hear that the audio problem has been fixed. Otherwise I might start buying the Criterions which can be picked up quite cheap via amazon.co.uk marketplace.


Actually most of these transfers are very good. They are Studio Canal transfers (as were the Warner box sets). I have not seen the Criterion DVDs but judging from the available screenshots I think these transfers may well be just as good (maybe even better). Tristana is the only one that looks bad but all other existing versions of that look crap as well. The only really big problem is the aforementioned audio problem on That Obscure Object. Still no reply from Optimum about that. I have emailed them a second time now.

I bought a new dvd drive for my computer and the discs that wouldn't play on my other player do work now. It was just a case of my dvd drive being shit. I think I'm going to keep this set now but I hope they sort out the audio problem and issue replacement discs. It really is dreadful at the moment. Otherwise perhaps I'll just buy the Criterion That Oscure Object of Desire. With the exception of Tristana the rest of the dvds are very good.

I guess "pale" was kind of a strong word. My whole thing is, I already have the 2 OOP Warner sets, I already have the Criterion Discreet Charm, The other Bunuel Criterions are lower tier and can be had to under $20 during online sales or on eBay. So what I was really looking forward to on this set was Tristana mainly and now the word is that it isn't so good. I HATE having multiple copies of a film but I am willing to do it on Bunuel films because he is a favorite director of mine. I will probably go with the previous suggestion and see how the Beaver weighs in and unless its just horrific (not to likely) or the docs are crap I'll get it.

I had the 2 OOP Warner sets as well but I sold them on ebay for a lot more than I paid for the box set. If it wasn't for the audio problem then this would definitely have been a good move. If I had known about this problem then I would have found a way to both sell and keep that particular disc, if you know what I mean . I would then have had nice versions of all the films. All the Optimum transfers are as good as, or better than, the Warner transfers. I'll report back on the extras when I've watched them but the one that I have had a brief look at (Belle de Jour) looks good - it's mostly based on an interview with Jean-Claude Carriere like Lino said.

Got mine and can basically confirm Vogler's account. Belle is perfect. Chambermaid and Obscure Object are equals of the Criterions. Discreet Charm and Phantom are a bit softer than the Criterions. Young Ones and Milky Way look superb. Yes, Tristana is bad but better than I was expecting.

So for $60, I got Belle, Young One, Milky Way, a bad Tristana and eight 20-30 minute documentaries. Don't feel bad about double dipping at all.

I experienced the same problem, but I'm keeping the Criterion version of this anyway for the supplements.

Matt, would you mind to post screencaps from the Optimum discs as compared to the Criterion ones? Gary seems to be "swamped" at the moment, so I guess your help would be fundamental to the members of this forum.

Oh, and how is the set packaged?

All thinpaks in a cardboard slipcover. I saw this with my own eyes at HMV.

And the spines are all PINK! Don't know if I can oblige with the screencaps, Lino. I can only do that at work and now (midterms) is not the best time.

An incredibly stylish boxset (even though I dislike think-packs). Most of the covers are replicas of the French set cover art with small a la mini-poster inserts.

As I mentioned at DVDTALK I think that if we are patient with Optimum they will be a top-notch distributor very soon. They clearly put a lot of effort into this set and as far as I am concerned at this point they act as No Shame did in the beginning when they acquired their Italian titles: a few mistakes here and there, hoping for positive feedback, praying for good sales.

I think that the UK (and us English speakers) lucked out big time and with a little patience we should have a great distrib to benefit from.

Even with the audio fiasco I am encouraged from what I've seen (of course it would be best if they addressed it ASAP).

Pro-B

I will if someone can tell me how to grab captures.

Damn you all for not liking the original Viridiana cover! It would've looked so good right next to this new set now!

DVDBeaver reviews and compares the new Optimum DVD of Belle de Jour.

Well, I'll be damned. DVD TIMES' review suggested that Optimum reused the Warner transfer for "Belle" (and "The Milky Way", etc.), but had re-encoded leading to a better looking image.

But I agree with Gary. To my eyes, the Warner Bros. "Belle de jour" transfer looks sharper with better fine detail, if only slightly.

I still might have to get this for the extras. But I'll need a review first. Still smarting from the "Julie Jones, Bunuel scholar" [really shitty] commentary on that completely obsolete Buena Vista disc.

Rich, I have decided to purchase this set myself. I saw Beaver's caps and review, but as much as I respect that site, I think it is highly unlikely that there will be any discernible difference between the Warner and Optimum editions of Belle, when the film is actually playing, and you are engaged in viewing it.

Up until a couple of years ago, I used to follow Beaver's reviews religiously, and half the time I would be discouraged by the caps, and pass on films that I had greatly looked forward to. I found that (to my eyes at least) many films that Beaver would not touch with a ten foot pole actually looked fine.

The standards of presentation have generally become so good that I rarely have any great objections. I love Criterion and MoC, etc. because they clearly take their transfers to the limits, but I view a lot of films from Alpha, Editions Montparnasse, Facets and Kino, and while in a straight comparison of stills, their transfers may reveal flaws, it is often very hard to detect, when the films are playing, and even then it is seldom a real problem (again, at least as far as I am concerned). The far greater and more important thing is that these films are becoming possible to see, where in the past you could struggle for decades to have the opportunity. In this specific case, you get 8 films + extras for 40 GBP! I purchased the Miramax of Belle back in the day, and I remember being completely happy -- both to finally be able to see the film, but actually also with the quality of the print. In Beaver's comparison, this disc looks like rot compared to both Warner's and Optimum's editons. I feel very safe in getting this set, and what a bargain.

Sorry, I know we always come back to this discussion in the forum, but I just feel sad to see anyone waste their time (as I did in the past) passing up the opportunity to see films, because of quality issues that are for all intents and purposes non-existant.

If I may be so bold as to offer my very humble two cents, the darks look richer on the Optimum transfer. And the subtitles are better (smaller and not italicized). The Optimum is the way to go for now.

Let's hope that the other comparisons for the rest of the transfers on the set don't take too long.

May I ask for a little help, please? I have an absurd question. It will most likely require help from French speakers. The Criterion DVD for "That Obscure Object Of Desire" states "RABJ" - The Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus. The Optimum R2 release states "RAIJ" - The Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus.

I was wondering which are the correct initials for what the judge says? Does he say "RABJ" or "RAIJ"? Thank you for your time. I hope this question isn't too strange.

I gotcha, and if I had failed to get the now OOP Warner set, I'd be buying this one. But unless the Optimum extras are super special (would love some feedback on that commentary), I see little point in buying "Belle", much less the entire set. It would certainly be a different story if I didn't already have the Warner "Belle" and "Milky Way" releases, not to mention all the Criterion Bunuels.

I'd still like to get a decent "Tristana" (and Optimum's appears to be the, er, decentist), and I'd love to even see "The Young Ones", but I don't want to repurchase every other Bunuel film to do so (and the major audio cock-up on "Obscure Object" blah blah). I'll pick up "The Young Ones" and "Tristana" if Optimum makes them available individually.

Both the reviews I've read of the Belle de Jour commentary have given it a firm thumbs down.

Here's DVD Maniacs:


And DVD Times:


I haven't listened to it myself yet, possibly because I know the commentator well and would rather not subject myself to it if it's too painful!


I'm guessing the original is 'infant', as that's correct French, but if you give me the exact point on the Criterion or Optimum DVDs where it's uttered, I'll give it a listen and confirm.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise you already own the Warner discs. I don't, but do have the Criterion releases, so my decision is based on Milky Way, The Young One and Tristana, with the extras and upgrade of Belle as an added bonus, which of course makes more sense.

The real dilemma for me will be, once I have purchased this set, and then Criterion decides to do a special edition on Tristana and/or Milky Way.

A while back I decided that I will probably be spending quite a bit of money for quite a while on films, so I will simply prioritize first according to the films themselves (and at this point not worry too much about possible better editions coming down the road, because in the greater scheme of things they always will appear eventually, certainly once a new format is truly up and running). Second priority is to upgrade films I already own (and I have quite a few on LD for example). On the average, I end up upgrading 2-4 titles a month.

A dilemma of an entirely different kind in relation to Optimum is the glut of material they are bringing out, and at very reasonable prices. Aside from the Hitchcock and Bunuel sets, they have within the last six months or so released a 16 film Ealing Studios collection (collection of several previous sets), a big box of war flicks (a dozen films or more), and the Hammer horror set to end all Hammer horror sets (16 or 20 films, I believe), if I remember correctly they also have the entire cycle of Basil Rathbone - Sherlock Holmes pictures in a box (10 or 12 films), and there are a batch of upcoming 3-5 film sets featuring Julie Christie, John Sayles and Catherine Deneuve (unfortunately duplicating Belle).

All of these are things that would be fun and affordable to own, but short of the closet beneath the sink in my bathroom, I am running out of storage space!

Thank you. I sold my Criterion DVD before buying the Optimum set. On the Optimum disc the scene occurs at the beginning of Chapter 2. A little past 12 minutes in. It's something so minor, but I would really like to know.

This is an excellent post that sums up my feelings as well. I will avoid going into detail (though if needed I can sure provide plenty of examples) but there is a great deal of inconsistency, often even bias, that oozes from BEAVER's reviews in recent years. I am not willing to get into passionate discussion as to why Criterion always happens to be the "obvious" choice when they clearly are not for many films reviewed on the site (suffice to say their color manipulations with the ongoing picture-boxing would have been enough of a reson for the site to dismiss ANY release over a Criterion print if the roles were reversed).

As to the Optimum set I said it before elsewhere and I will say it again it is a great deal and a great package. I also happen to believe that the Optimum transfer on Belle LOOKS better (smoother) and the subtitles are of decent size.

Pro-B

This is obviously going off topic, but I think it is an important discussion.

First off, I have tremendous respect for what Gary does, and I think Beaver is a fantastic and fun site (although definitely not the only site, and I think as a reader, one needs to approach the site with some healthy scepticism). The screen caps and comparisons are a great service to the internet film community, however, I think the best approach is to look at these for general guidance, and then form a personal opinion based on your eyes rather than on the site's final verdict.

However, with the caps, I have long wondered as to the consistency of how these are generated? Beaver and many people on this site appear to accept the comparisons as scientific truth (and, it is possible that the various reviewers at Beaver does have a 100% consistent and foolproof method -- I obviously do not know), but sometimes I get the impression that different sets of caps may have been captured under different circumstances (see the Spartacus on this site for one example that has made me wonder). I am not sure exactly how to explain, but how do we know that one set of caps are captured under identical circumstances to another set of caps that were taken maybe years earlier (possibly on different equipment) and maybe even by a different reviewer somewhere else in the world. I have nothing concrete to base this on, but is it just possible that some of the discrepancies between different sets of caps are actually generated in the capturing process itself?

Then there is the obvious question relating to ghosting and other artifacts that often make caps look horrendous at Beaver, and when I view the same discs, I may be able to see that a certain transfer is not of flawless quality, but it will usually look vastly better than what the review would appear to indicate (of course, I hardly ever sit and view stills of a given film). This is not Beaver's fault of course -- I am sure that DVDs when viewed in stills have these defects, if they are poorly transferred -- my point merely is that as far as I am concerned, way too much importance is being placed on these defects from a viewing perspective.

Finally, there is the bias against certain labels, and Kino would (to me at least) appear the most glaring and unjust example. I can completely sympathise with Beaver being unenthusiastic about Kino for reasons of pricing, or general quality of transfers, or whatever other reason, but it appears that this lack of enthusiasm has almost resulted in a black listing of the label, which really is not fair considering the obvious quality of the films that the label releases month after month. Even if all their releases were of completely hopeless technical quality, I still think that these should be mentioned, since the label obviously fills a very important niche.

In closing, I repeat my respect for Gary & co., and extend apologies if anything about is based on wrong assumptions on my part. I certainly can also see this from Beaver's side -- I do not imagine that there is any kind of reward for all the hard work that these people do, aside from review copies of films. If I have any misgiving about Beaver, it is simply that the "scientific approach" model of reviewing would appear to have placed the site in a position to make or break a release with many people (including myself in the past), and I think that is unfair both to the DVD producers that are not in critical favor, and to any other serious reviewing site on the internet, and finally and most importantly to the film fans who for whatever reason base their decision about a given DVD purchase more or less solely on Beaver's verdict, and (again, like myself in the past) end up missing out on a lot of great films experiences as a result.

As the difference results from two different (and equally acceptable) translations of the original French, the correct answer is that they're both 'wrong' (and both 'right'). In the original, the organisation is apparently the Groupe Armee Revolutionnaire de l'Enfant Jesus, or GAREJ. Here's a reference.