14 / BD 56 Kuroneko

[davebert]

Nope, hadn't considered that before, although it makes sense.

On a lighter note, my wife and I watched this a few weeks ago, and after the first time the cats appeared and began to mew, our own two black cats sauntered into the living room. One sat down on the rug in front of the TV and the other joined us on the couch, but both sat in full attention staring at the TV for at least 15-20 minutes.

It's the first time they've ever done that, and I thought it was pretty awesome.

And a little creepy.

[AK]

Now that Onibaba is coming to Blu-ray and considering that Criterion have already released this on Blu, it would be more than natural to upgrade this. Has anyone heard anything? I like this even more than Onibaba, and the only reason I'm not buying the Criterion is that I'm hoping for an MoC.

[Nobby]

Spines #54 and #56 are free at the moment, so my guess is they're reserved for Naked Island and Kuroneko respectively. I suppose we can expect both titles on blu this year, since MoC don't leave free spines empty for too long in their blu catalogue.

I'm actually surprised that Kuroneko is not out yet, it's a great movie and most likely a well-selling title for MoC.

[swo17]

Our next release for June: a Blu-ray upgrade of Kaneto (THE NAKED ISLAND / ONIBABA) Shindô's gorgeous and ghostly KURONEKO.

[AK]

Glad to see this film get an upgrade sooner rather than later. The most interesting question that remains is how the picture quality compares to the Criterion (that I've been trying to avoid, knowing MoC will get to this eventually). Nevertheless, the Criterion is a stunner and in my books among their most inviting releases in terms of overall packaging/cover art and transfer quality.

[MichaelB]

Glad to see this film get an upgrade sooner rather than later. The most interesting question that remains is how the picture quality compares to the Criterion (that I've been trying to avoid, knowing MoC will get to this eventually).

Did Criterion do their own transfer, or were they merely sent an HD restoration from Japan? If the latter, presumably there'll be very little difference?

[AK]

Glad to see this film get an upgrade sooner rather than later. The most interesting question that remains is how the picture quality compares to the Criterion (that I've been trying to avoid, knowing MoC will get to this eventually).

Did Criterion do their own transfer, or were they merely sent an HD restoration from Japan? If the latter, presumably there'll be very little difference?

My uneducated guess is it's the latter case. Perhaps my phrasing ("picture quality") might sound a tad too radical in this context, but what I mean is it'll be interesting to see – assuming they'll be from the same restoration - whether Criterion has played with the contrast and, assuming MoC won't do that, whether there's much of a difference. Again, I guess there won't be much, and my interest in the subject merely stems from this film being one of my favourites in terms of the use of light and shadow, something that's utterly fabulous-looking on the Criterion release already. Come to think of it, I might end up buying that Criterion, too.

[MichaelB]

Beaver.

Interestingly, given the discussion immediately above, it seems that the transfers are quite strikingly different - both excellent in their own way, but the Criterion is substantially brighter. Going from the grabs (i.e. with the usual caveats), I have to say that I provisionally prefer the look of the MoC, but I'll obviously have to see it in motion first.

[Finch]

I prefer the MoC look as well but I don't care about the film enough to justify buying it for the third time (MoC DVD bought, then sold in favour of the Criterion BD).

[vsski]

I'm in the same boat - I really struggle more and more with the many overlaps between MoC and Criterion. There are so many films I don't yet have that buying the same title twice makes little sense irrespective of the money. Unless the edition I don't yet own has substantially different supplements that I'm really interested in, I will likely pass.

[Drucker]

I'm in the same boat - I really struggle more and more with the many overlaps between MoC and Criterion. There are so many films I don't yet have that buying the same title twice makes little sense irrespective of the money. Unless the edition I don't yet own has substantially different supplements that I'm really interested in, I will likely pass.

I have no idea which one is truer or anything like that, but seeing that I can get Naked Island and Onibaba also from MOC, I'm tempted to sell the Criterion, and snatch up all three from MOC (though those covers are still bland to awful in range.)

[vsski]

I have no idea which one is truer or anything like that, but seeing that I can get Naked Island and Onibaba also from MOC, I'm tempted to sell the Criterion, and snatch up all three from MOC (though those covers are still bland to awful in range.)

I haven't seen the movie in theaters and don't know which BD is a better representation, but owning the Criterion, which has the lenghty interview with Kando that I enjoyed watching at the time, I see no reason to part with it. I will, however, get Naked Island, since I'm not aware that it will be coming out soon from anyone else. And I already own the Onibaba BD from MOC (which I'm sure CC will publish soon as well just to annoy me).

[andyli]

I don't know what's happening here, but looking at the second set of caps on Beaver, I think they simply don't match. Check out the roof and the doorway (a board on the ground in the MoC edition). Are they from different takes or something?

[manicsounds]

Blu-ray.com gives a 3.5 on PQ

[JSC]

Personally, I like the darker tones of the MOC. But my major problem with the Criterion
blu-ray (this also applies to High and Low) is that the subtitles are difficult to read against any
white surfaces because of the high-contrast stock. Even when I used the projector, everyone
present said it was a strain to read at times.

[TMDaines]

I agree. I find Criterion's subs on Blu-ray some of the worst out there for this reason. 8 1/2 is very difficult at times too. I much prefer MoC's and RHV's, from Italy, too.

[manicsounds]

AVforums gives the picture quality 5/10

[MichaelB]

Why are their stills framed in Academy? The film (and MoC's BD) is definitely 2.35:1.

[Shingster]

Just read that AVforums review & I must admit I've never been more perplexed by a disc review in my life. I've recently covered the title myself for TheDigitalFix and I saw none of the extreme print inconsistencies, brightness fluctuations and contrast/brightness boosting that Simon Crust describes, not at the beginning, middle or end of the feature. It looks very naturalistic but very dark at times, with at most a moderate level of print damage given the origins of the film. The most bizarre statement for me is the one where he says: "Brightness and contrast are set quite strong". I'm afraid that's just flat out incorrect, when I first read that I initially suspected that the reviewer might be confusing the Kabuki-style sequences with brightness/contrast tinkering on MoC's part, but then he goes on to explain those sequences in the review! Surely he had his answer for the so-called "white blooming" there?

It's also interesting that he talks about water marks on the print at the start of the film? Can't say I noticed that either, why would there be water marks on a film print at all for that matter? Most odd!

Why are their stills framed in Academy? The film (and MoC's BD) is definitely 2.35:1.

Yeah he's posted PR stills, which obviously look nothing like any DVD/BD release of the film let alone the MoC BD!

[Finch]

Digital Fix's Matt Shingleton

Do you want the image to be bright and illuminated so you can soak up as much of mise-en-scène as possible, or do you want the film to be more gloomy and moody as befitting a supernatural horror with strong Kabuki leanings?

As a viewer, I'm leaning more towards the latter, but I'm also well aware that no other prior release has looked THIS gloomy, heck even the 1080p trailer on the disc appears significantly brighter. The Masters of Cinema transfer looks very naturalistic, and I feel it should be commended for doing so, but not everyone is going to love it! So with that naturalistic bent in mind, I have to say that the film looks dark with only moderate levels of shadow detail in the darker scenes and more expressive shadows in the few brightly-lit daytime sequences, while a thick veil of grain extracts more fine detail from the image. This is a true 1080p presentation with the grain nicely defined, but the look of the film is pretty soft so don't expect to see any crevices in the faces of the performers.

The print is in good condition with only moderate levels of nicks & pops flickering up on the screen, and there are absolutely zero signs of any noise reduction in play. Contrast levels are also pleasingly organic, whites are never too "hot" and black levels are never too deep (as I would expect from film of this age & budget), while the AVC compression averages out to a bitrate of 35Mbps. The disc is beautifully authored with nary a compression artefact in sight.

[McCrutchy]

Well, the obvious thing for me to do was to order the MoC and see just what the hell is going on for myself. I don't have the Criterion yet, either, so I will get that during the Barnes and Noble sale in July. It should work out well--I'll end end up watching the MoC first, so I won't be biased against the Criterion, and since David Mackenzie (of Mondo Vision fame) did the encode for MoC, I expect there's absolutely nothing wrong with that part of the presentation. Really intrigued to compare them.

[Orlac]

The MOC looks more atmospheric judging from the screencaps. How do people here find it compared to the Criterion - which looks too bright to my eyes.