Point Blank

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Message
Author
User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#26 Post by Gordon » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:14 pm

Point Blank is an amazing film. Marvin's best, perhaps and Boorman's early films are exceptional. Point Blank is one of the great lessons in filmmaking of the Sixties; the discussion between Andre Jurieu and dvdane has been very enlightening.

I can't wait for this disc. I hope that Warner revist Deliverance a a 2-disc SE very soon.

On a side-note: The pan and scan transfer of Hell in the Pacific is one of worst DVD tragedies. This movie simply does not work in p&s - every shot is ruined.

The featurette, "The Rock" that will be on the Point Blank DVD is this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258931

User avatar
Poncho Punch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:07 pm
Location: the emerald empire

#27 Post by Poncho Punch » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:58 pm

Gordon McMurphy wrote:On a side-note: The pan and scan transfer of Hell in the Pacific is one of worst DVD tragedies. This movie simply does not work in p&s - every shot is ruined.
My copy of Hell In The Pacific is letterboxed 2.35:1. The transfer's pretty shoddy, but it is in the right aspect ratio.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#28 Post by Gordon » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:07 pm

My mistake, Poncho: I was thinking of the UK edition which is p&s. The US edition is 2.35:1 non-ana, but is from a poor element, was poorly transfered and has weak encoding. It's a fine, unique film and deserves better.

User avatar
Poncho Punch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:07 pm
Location: the emerald empire

#29 Post by Poncho Punch » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:12 pm

Sorry, I should have realized from your location that you'd be talking about the R2 UK disc.


And I agree that it deserves better.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#30 Post by zedz » Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:20 am

dvdane wrote:It is no secret that I am very uncomfortable with the notion of neo-noir. The reason is, that most research into neo-noir more or less is the same, as if one would say, that "Deer Hunter" was a neo-WW2 film.

Film Noir is a very strictly defined subgenre, I would even argue that its not a subgenre but a period instead, associated with both the Gangster and the Detective subgenre, both belonging to Crime genre. Its defined by variety of themes fatalism, corruption, post war depression (and more), its distinct black and white cinematography and some unique character types.

I find most of the studies into neo-noir more an excuse for academics to make up arguments, which they then force upon films, to make their postulates appear valid. For instance the French films of the 30s, like Quai du Brumes and Le Corbeau are now suggested to be Film Noir, not so much because they posses any of the qualities of the American Film Noir, but because the French, who coined the word, should have dismissed French films in favor of American films. Such an argument is silly. Already during the war, these films were by the French ascribed a "dark" quality, and one may call them "Noir Realism", but they are as different to Film Noir as a film like "I was a fugitive to the Chain Gang". The same about neo-noir. Where filmmakers like Polanski and Schrader talk about taking qualities from Film Noir and place them in contemporary setting, it is instantly neo-noir, and those who argue this omit a long lasting quality about specific themes, characters, stories, etc. Im willing to strech myself to that films like "Harper" and "Klute" can be identified and read as a sort of colour-noir, but to me films later than the early seventies are mere excersises, in the same way that some directors also use the format of the musicals of the 30s in films today.

If you use any number of themes, characters, motifs, techniques, styles, whathaveyou, from old films, its homage and hypertextuality. If you take one sentence from a film noir and use it today, its neo-noir and an entire genre for itself. That is streching transtextuality quiet a distance.

However, via detour (which btw imo is the best noir film ever made), we arrive at "Point Blank" by Boorman, imo one of the most influential and important American films of the 60s.

Personally I think that Andre is doing the same mistake that all the believers of neo-noir is doing, namely taking a little here and there from Noir and squeezing a text into it, making it look as.
I think the most distinctive feature of film noir is that is was a genre defined by critics rather than practitioners. John Ford knew when he was making a western; James Whale knew when he was making a horror movie; and Douglas Sirk sure as hell knew the genre expectations he was playing with. But practitioners or noir were, to the best of their knowledge, working within other genres (crime films; gangster films), and it was only after the fact that certain critics identified certain shared characteristics within these works as amounting to a sub-genre (or, if you're inclined to see noir as a collection of traits that can be expressed within different genres, a trans-generic phenomenon).

Because this genre is a critical construct, there's naturally a lot less consensus about which films belong within the genre and which films don't (in fact, since the filmmakers weren't actually making films noirs, every inclusion within the genre is there by virtue of an act of criticism). And there's endless latitude for creating rules for inclusion and exclusion. We don't see the same level of contention over whether a given film is a musical, or a biblical epic, or a war movie. One genre that has slightly similar characteristics may be the screwball comedy, though that is clearly an example of a sub-genre, without the trans-generic complications of noir.

Now this is problematic enough, but it becomes more problematic when we consider latter-day filmmakers evoking the tropes of film noir. Because they're consciously referencing a synthetic genre, a critical construct, there's an unavoidable degree of self-referentiality. They're not working within an organic generic tradition, like the western or the musical, but are tagging their film with the trappings of noir. When a filmmaker is paying homage in this way I think it's fair enough to define their work as neo-noir (this may be a more useful definition of that term than the a loose meaning of 'latter-day noir').

-----------------------

Apropos of nothing much, I like Truffaut's anecdote about phoning in a review of The Southerner to a Paris paper from a film festival (Cannes?), and finding it described in print as "un film de genre noir" rather than "un film de Jean Renoir."

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#31 Post by dvdane » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:27 am

I have on previous occasions said, that I prefer Film Noir as a period, even more as a narrative field, than a subgenre. And zedz post made me want to elaborate on this.

It doesn't matter who identifies a "genre", what matters is that it is identified and is functional within its narrative limits.

Any genre is a collection of narrative elements and conventions by which a group of films can be identified, classified and recognized. They work, not because those who use them use them, but because the audience respond to them. It always has been the audience and always will be the audience who by their response approve of a technique or genre.

A genre is a living organisme, partly because the audience change, partly because society changes, but mainly because narrative elements aren't absolutes. And here is where the director is important, as a simple repetition of genre conventions rather fast will turn into cliche, and only the director who understands the rules of the genre, will be able to bend them, expand them and thereby participate in the development of the genre.

It is very true that the filmmakers who made "Film Noir" before it was identified as such, wasn't aware of they made it. I believe it was Robert Mitchum who said, "Hell, we just called them B-pictures".

They were making detective stories, gangster films, crime dramas. It was an attitude towards the world, a cynicism, it was a tone in the dialogue, a mood. It was an attack on male masculinity (which even during the post-war Film Noir period was present i films not associated with noir, like "Rebel without a cause"). It was a whole bunch of things put together, things which after noir was identified as "Film Noir" didn't change, but continued to develop and eventually died out.

From that perspective, it makes no sense to approach Film Noir as a subgenre, but it makes sense to approch it as a period within the bounderies of a group of subgenres (detective, gangster and so on).

Within genre, periods are very important. For instance musicals. There are the early sound period, the classic period, the modern period and the contemporary period. What limits each period is limited by its own rules, narrative fields and so on. One narrative element which seperates the classic from the modern is the use of "singing". In the classic, the story would come to a halt when a song appeared, while the modern musical would incorperate the song in the narrative and use it to elaborate on situation or character. Now take a film like "The Mask" and the Cuban Pete sequence. The song does not elaborate on anything, it brings the narrative to a halt, so it must be a neo-classic musical element. No one would say this. One would say, that the film incorperated a so and so musical number in a so and so way, perhaps noting on homage and allusion.

So why is it, that the mere presence of a single element from Film Noir suddenly overrules everything and makes it a neo-noir?
When a filmmaker is paying homage in this way I think it's fair enough to define their work as neo-noir
No its not. I strongly disagree. Homage is to pay respect, its about showing where one is coming from and what brought one here. Its acknowledgement. Its transtextual, as it puts one text in relation to another.

For instance, Jim McBride paid homage to the Nouvelle Vague with "Breathless", but would you ever think of calling it neo-nouvelle vague? But many are calling "Klute" a neo-noir simply because of Fonda's femme-fatale like character. As far I am concerned, the only true homage to film noir is "Body Heat".

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#32 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:33 pm

dvdane wrote:So why is it, that the mere presence of a single element from Film Noir suddenly overrules everything and makes it a neo-noir?
Well, the most straightforward answer I can think of is that it doesn't. As I said before the mere presence of a single element, or line of dialogue, from Film Noir doesn't overrule everything and suddenly make a movie into "neo-noir". I would think for that label to apply, a great many elements of film noir must be present, though not every single last detail. Classification based on one element would be an exaggeration of what constitutes noir. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, this is beginning to feel like an all-or-nothing kind of methodology, where the only way a film can be considered to be related to "noir" is to include every last detail, and if it doesn't then it must be dismissed completely as something else. I'm just saying a substantial (though not complete) amount of film noir elements must exist within the film.
dvdane wrote:They were making detective stories, gangster films, crime dramas. It was an attitude towards the world, a cynicism, it was a tone in the dialogue, a mood. It was an attack on male masculinity (which even during the post-war Film Noir period was present i films not associated with noir, like "Rebel without a cause"). It was a whole bunch of things put together, things which after noir was identified as "Film Noir" didn't change, but continued to develop and eventually died out.
Ok, if someone were to make a detective story/gangster film/crime drama today, that contained a general attitude of cynicism and anxiety, within a dark, somber, depressed mood, that used its story to attack conventional ideals of masculinity, but maybe used a different form of dialogue and filmed in muted color, and mostly in darkness, could it not be considered some form of noir? Again, I'm not saying this type of film should be considered Film Noir, since it does not belong to the WWII era, but why exactly can it not be considered some form of "noir" (whether you want to attached the prefix "neo", or "contemporary", or whatever).

Is our problem really with the term itself, or the misuse of the term?

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#33 Post by Lino » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:30 am


User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#34 Post by Gordon » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:42 am

I just finished watching Point Blank. Pulverizing. A true lesson in Cinema by a somewhat unprolific, underappreciated auteur. Lee Marvin's performance here is probably his best; he is relentless, although you may want to note that Marvin never directly, intentionally kills anyone in the film, he is merely the Agent of Fortune. The actual plot of the film is familiar, what makes the film powerful and memorable is its style and attitude. This is surely down to the fact that consumate veteran crew mere involved: Henry Grace (legendary set decorator); Keogh Gleason (another superb set decorator); George W. Davis (prolific Hollywood art director); Albert Brenner (vastly experienced AD/production designer, who was just starting out back in the mid-60sa) and, of course, the great cinematographer, Philip Lathrop, whom, as you can see, has worked on some of the most visually interesting Hollywood movies of the last 40 years. All under the amazing, imaginative direction of the young Boorman, a landmark Hollywood crime thriller was born. It holds up brilliantly and Warner's transfer is gorgeous and the mono soundtrack sounds fat, punchy, with the spooky, subtle score by Johnny Mandel is well-presented.

I haven't listened to the commentary yet, but I have heard that it is just as good as the Soderbergh-Nichols track on Catch 22, so I am really looking forward to it. Part 2 of the featurette, The Rock is superb, beautifully shot, very philosophical and could stand on its own. With the fine cover-art, it is overall, a great package from Warner of one of my most favorite American films.

User avatar
Jem
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Potts Point

#35 Post by Jem » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:57 pm

Michael Blowhard wrote:Finally available on DVD: John Boorman's legendary (and trippily amazing) "Point Blank." It's a near-abstract crime thriller starring Lee Marvin in an iconic tough-guy role; with John Vernon and Angie Dickinson first-class in hardboiled supporting roles; and featuring some of the flashiest camera work and editing of the 1960s. Very little that goes on onscreen makes much sense, but the film is satisfyingly sleazy, pungent, and intense anyway.

Fans of "Kill Bill" may enjoy "Point Blank"'s somewhat similar style: hallucinatory, over-the-top, and getting-high-on-itself. The film was based on "The Hunter," the same Donald Westlake novel that served as the basis for Mel Gibson's 1999 "Payback," which I didn't think was all that bad, really.

Boorman is one of the most articulate of all film directors; he published an excellent diary about making his film "The Emerald Forest," and he edited one of the best movie magazines ever. So I'm looking forward to sampling his director's commentary.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#36 Post by Lino » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:08 am

Am mid-way watching this amazing movie with the audio commentary on and suddenly Soderbergh asks Boorman if he has seen Red Desert and he says yes and they go on to say that they find that particular Antonioni film very influential to both of them. Right at that moment everything clicked for me: all those chromatic idiossincracies in Point Black made all the more sense to me from then on.

Definitely one of the most enjoyable and articulate audio commentaries I've ever had the pleasure to listen to.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#37 Post by Gordon » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:40 am

Yes, it is a superb commentary, Annie; it sheds valuable light on many aspects of the film. The link to Antonioni was something that, understandably, espcaped me when I first saw the film in 1997, as I had not, at that point, seen any of Antonioni's films, but the connection - of Man lost and alienated in the Modern World - is definitely strong in Point Blank. Easily one of the most interesting American films of the late 60s.

Annie, if you don't own it already, you'll really want to check out the Catch 22 DVD, which has Soderbergh asking Mike Nichols all the right questions. A bit techy, but this one outrageous production with some great stories. This commentary is one of the few commentaries that really made me appreciate a film a lot more.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#38 Post by Lino » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:59 am

Thanks, I will do that as that is a Mike Nichols film that keeps eluding me and has been on my to-buy list on and off for ages. Guess now's the time.

Back to Point Blank: it's great to know that Boorman has also painted certain parts of the scenery in particular colors to match the mood much like Antonioni did on Red Desert. It certainly adds to the building atmosphere the fact that he started the film in very muted, grey, dull colors and slowly by slowly he adds a splash of yellow here, some green there and a waterfall of red somewhere else and it's just like he says: the audience doesn't notice this at first but definitely feels it. So simple and so effective.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#39 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:22 am

Gordon McMurphy wrote:Yes, it is a superb commentary, Annie; it sheds valuable light on many aspects of the film. The link to Antonioni was something that, understandably, espcaped me when I first saw the film in 1997, as I had not, at that point, seen any of Antonioni's films, but the connection - of Man lost and alienated in the Modern World - is definitely strong in Point Blank. Easily one of the most interesting American films of the late 60s.
My favorite bit from the commentary is near the beginning when he talks about how the original script for the movie was so bad that Lee Marvin tossed it out the window. In the next breath, Boorman comments on how Mel Gibson's crap remake, Payback used that draft of the script! Hah. That explains so much....

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#40 Post by exte » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:13 pm

flixyflox wrote:Coming to this late but a couple of thoughts:
First I own the LD and I don't really agree the color is great - to me a typical 60s/70s Metrocolor/Eastman transfer. I hope they do a real resotration job on the DVD.
What's your final verdict on the dvd?

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#41 Post by Matt » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:23 pm

Poncho Punch wrote:And I agree that it deserves better.
I'm surprised I don't see more talk about Hell in the Pacific on this forum. Of course, until I watched it, I figured it was just another war film. It's nothing of the sort.

For those who haven't seen it, Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune are soldiers (American and Japanese, duh) stranded on an otherwise uninhabited island in the Pacific. We're not sure how they got there (Marvin mumbles an explanation at one point on how he got there, but it doesn't reveal a whole lot), where they are, or if the war is still even going on. The movie starts at the moment Mifune discovers that there is someone else on the island. At first they treat each other as enemy soldiers. Once they realize their survival depends on cooperation, they enact an uneasy truce. After going through a trial that really tests them (I don't want to reveal too much), the truce kind of dissolves. Boorman's original ending was changed after the film didn't perform well at the box office (why do producers always think recutting will translate into increased ticket sales? Has it ever worked?), and the one put in its place is a very strange kind of "fuck you" ending.

Mifune and Marvin are the only two actors in the film and Mifune's dialogue (there's very little dialogue to speak of anyway) is unsubtitled. Conrad Hall's widescreen cinematography is, of course, fantastic and makes excellent use of natural light (even though he cheats in the night scenes, but at least they're not day-for-night). Lalo Schifrin did the score and it's just as eccentric as you'd expect a Schifrin score to be in 1968 (Hey, let's score this scene with an organ, let's score this one with a high-pitched electronic drone).

It's kind of sad to think that Criterion could once have released this when they had access to all the ABC films through Anchor Bay (the same deal that resulted in Rebecca, Spellbound, and Straw Dogs. Boorman's early work is pretty neglected (though I see why--he slid into silliness pretty quickly).

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#42 Post by tryavna » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:52 pm

Matt wrote:Boorman's early work is pretty neglected (though I see why--he slid into silliness pretty quickly).
Could you explain what you mean by "silliness," Matt? Do you mean silliness within individual films, or do you mean that whole films are outright silly? 'Cause I'm not sure I'd classify Deliverance, Excalibur, and Hope and Glory as "silly" films. (Would that other filmmakers experience a similar "slide"!) Zardoz, on the other hand....

But I agree with you about Hell in the Pacific. An intriguing, if not altogether satisfying, movie. That ending nearly ruins it, but Mifune and Marvin are excellent together.

BTW, you and I must be watching TCM at the exact same moments these days. I caught this one recently, and I remember that you mentioned seeing part of Olivier's Hamlet the other day. I had it on for a few minutes, too.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#43 Post by Matt » Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:49 pm

tryavna wrote:
Matt wrote:Boorman's early work is pretty neglected (though I see why--he slid into silliness pretty quickly).
Could you explain what you mean by "silliness," Matt? Do you mean silliness within individual films, or do you mean that whole films are outright silly? 'Cause I'm not sure I'd classify Deliverance, Excalibur, and Hope and Glory as "silly" films. (Would that other filmmakers experience a similar "slide"!) Zardoz, on the other hand....
I've never seen Hope and Glory even though a friend has bugged me for nearly a decade to see it. I'm speaking primarily of the slide from Point Blank, Hell in the Pacific, and Deliverance straight into Exorcist II (which I know has its rabid fans from whom I'll be hearing in one or two posts to follow) and Zardoz. Excalibur redeems him a little, but it's still a pretty silly film compared to the three greats I mentioned above: "ANAAL NATHRAKH!"

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#44 Post by tryavna » Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:56 pm

Matt wrote:
tryavna wrote:
Matt wrote:Boorman's early work is pretty neglected (though I see why--he slid into silliness pretty quickly).
Could you explain what you mean by "silliness," Matt?
I've never seen Hope and Glory even though a friend has bugged me for nearly a decade to see it. I'm speaking primarily of the slide from Point Blank, Hell in the Pacific, and Deliverance straight into Exorcist II (which I know has its rabid fans from whom I'll be hearing in one or two posts to follow) and Zardoz. Excalibur redeems him a little, but it's still a pretty silly film compared to the three greats I mentioned above
Gotcha. That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure. You should definitly watch Hope and Glory when you get a chance. A rather slight movie in many ways perhaps, but very warm and evocative. I also remember liking The General when I saw it several years ago, but I'm really keen to see if Boorman can recapture what he did in Excalibur if and when he ever manages to complete Memoirs of Hadrian.

ranaing83
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:40 am
Location: http://directcinema.blogspot.com
Contact:

#45 Post by ranaing83 » Sat May 12, 2007 11:06 am

Just watched this at the Lee Marvin retro that's going on currently at the Lincoln Center, and I certainly wasn't prepared for it. All I can say is, WOW. How is this film not more widely discussed/viewed/appreciated? For me, this has got to be one of the most interesting and experimental mainstream films of the 60's, and probably of Hollywood. I can't imagine a genre crime film coming out of hollywood today that would be audacious enough to open as Point Blank did. One of my favorite elements of the film was the sound design, and how Boorman really plays around with silence and with bursts of sound. I still have the sound of Marvin's footsteps in my head.

j99
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Point Blank

#46 Post by j99 » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:44 am

Re Andre Jurieu : That was a superb analysis of the film on the previous page. I watched Point Blank for the first time yesterday, and you certainly cleared up a lot of the questions I had about the film. Thanks.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: Point Blank

#47 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:09 pm

j99 wrote:Re Andre Jurieu : That was a superb analysis of the film on the previous page. I watched Point Blank for the first time yesterday, and you certainly cleared up a lot of the questions I had about the film. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind words!... and also for reminding me about this discussion. This is making me quite nostalgic, due mostly to the fact that I'm reminded of all the fantastic personalities that used to frequent the forum (Henrik, Poncho, ben, Fletch, exte, tryavna). I'd kind of forgotten about this thread, since I assumed it was lost in all the subsequent re-organizations and I didn't realize it was in this section. I figured it was lost somewhere in the "Old Films" sub-forum.

j99
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Point Blank

#48 Post by j99 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:50 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:This is making me quite nostalgic, due mostly to the fact that I'm reminded of all the fantastic personalities that used to frequent the forum (Henrik, Poncho, ben, Fletch, exte, tryavna). I'd kind of forgotten about this thread, since I assumed it was lost in all the subsequent re-organizations and I didn't realize it was in this section. I figured it was lost somewhere in the "Old Films" sub-forum.
I've just noticed your response. Yes, it's a film I wanted to see again for a long time, and picked up the DVD fairly cheaply. I forgot how complex it was, and your analysis certainly filled in the gaps, and went beyond the commentary which was rather general. Coincidentally, this film was shown on the BBC last week. I'm sure it's been many years since it's been shown on terrestrial in the UK, unless I missed it.

User avatar
Stephen
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Re: Point Blank

#49 Post by Stephen » Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:09 am

Coming to UK cinemas care of the BFI

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/bfi- ... oint-blank

Could BFI be pulling this out of the Warner fire a la The Devils? The UK market never has had a DVD release of this masterpiece, only a very ropey pan and scan MGM VHS. Wish I was back in London for this. If ever a film deserves an HD release, this is it.

User avatar
repeat
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:04 am
Location: high in the Custerdome

Re: Point Blank

#50 Post by repeat » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:31 am

Stephen wrote:Could BFI be pulling this out of the Warner fire a la The Devils?
[-o< [-o< [-o<

It's funny, I never realized Point Blank was a little-known or underappreciated film before recently, when I got a Blu-ray player: this was among the first must-upgrades that came to mind (likewise when I first got a region-free player, it was among the first R1 titles I bought) - and I just could not believe it hadn't been restored to HD yet!

Not to go ahead of things, but if BFI really were on the case, and would go through the trouble to include that Lee Marvin doc, and maybe get the Soderbergh commentary on there - now that would be a pretty serious candidate for reissue of the year.

Post Reply