criterionforum.org

hot_locket wrote:From what I gathered, Dominik's cut was even MORE dreamy and Malicky, and the film as it is is the result of making it as appealing to the general public as possible.

Although, Malick himself...

The finished film runs 160 minutes and, because of its lyrical narration and Roger Deakins' sublime magic-hour cinematography, has drawn comparisons to Terrence Malick, whom Dominik counts as a friend. (He even shot a week of second unit on 'The New World' before being fired for not being in the Directors Guild.) 'I showed the movie to Terry and he was appalled. He was like: "It's too long, there's too much voiceover, you've got to cut that." '

Has there been any talk of a director's cut DVD? This is a stunning film. I would love to see it as it was originally intended.

I ordered the Blu-Ray today thinking it would be a fantastic film to see in this format. I am sort of miffed by Warner's treatment of this film according to the reviews (which I foolishly read after I ordered the film). #-o

edge enhancement, 160min film on 1 25gig disc, etc...

It won an Oscar. I really wish Warner Brothers would give it a decent DVD/BR to recoup the loss. Even the director's cut would be great.

The edge-enhancement on the disc isn't the worst though, it's certainly not in the category of Gangs of New York and the Dark Knight Blu-ray releases, you just wonder why there is any edge-enhancement at all, when we were told (unless this is a false-memory) that hi-definition would rid DVD of the ringing blight.

aox wrote:It won an Oscar. I really wish Warner Brothers would give it a decent DVD/BR to recoup the loss. Even the director's cut would be great.

It didn't win either of the oscars it was nominated for (supporting actor and cinematography)

stwrt wrote:The edge-enhancement on the disc isn't the worst though, it's certainly not in the category of Gangs of New York and the Dark Knight Blu-ray releases, you just wonder why there is any edge-enhancement at all, when we were told (unless this is a false-memory) that hi-definition would rid DVD of the ringing blight.

Not that it is relevant here, but I didn't realize there were problems with the Dark Knight BR disc. I have only heard praise.

miless wrote:

aox wrote:It won an Oscar. I really wish Warner Brothers would give it a decent DVD/BR to recoup the loss. Even the director's cut would be great.

It didn't win either of the oscars it was nominated for (supporting actor and cinematography)

right when I saw that I realized my mistake. I guess that no matter how much I love Bardem's performance, I always thought Affleck won. My apologies.

I recently watched this film and, of course, I was shaken by how slow and unusual it was... but by the end, it was pretty powerful, and it stuck with me for a few days. Then I read the following piece of The Guardian and, wow, after initially resisting its interpretation, I suddenly got it:

As his career draws to an end, Jesse James becomes aware of the impossibility of facing an increasingly vast army of sheriffs, federal agents and Pinkerton men. He senses that, inevitably, one of his gang will in any case sell him out for a fat reward. Unwilling to give the lawmen that satisfaction, James embraces his own death and subtly cultivates the mercurial attentions of the most obviously cringing and cowardly of his associates: 20-year-old Robert Ford. With the taunts and whims of a lover, he encourages Ford's envious, murderous fascination, and grooms him as his own killer, so that his own legend will be pristine after his death. He engineers a character-assassination of Ford, and the title, knowingly, gets it precisely the wrong way around.

I've since watched it again, and the foreshadowing and James's own paranoia and despair creep slowly but surely onto the screen. This is truly a masterpiece.

I picked up the Bluray and was very disappointed :(

There's compression artefacts in every other scene. Skin texture or wall texture stay put as the camera slightly moves around, making it very distracting if you're sitting close enough to see it. It's obviously better than the DVD release, but a huge shame to be so neglected.

I wonder if Criterion might give this film a release one day?

I really hope Warner Bros. either give this the release it deserves or stop being so greedy and license it to Criterion. It's a shame a film like this hasn't recieved the attention it deserves. I think when people reflect on the early aughts, this (along with Punch-Drunk Love) will be recognized as one of the most underrated films of it's decade.

"We knew this fuckin' thing was gonna tank": Andrew Dominik speaks candidly at a recent NY revival screening about the film and how even Terrence Malick thought an early cut was "too slow".

"...Dominik (rightly) pointed out that people who think Malick's films are slow are dead wrong—they zoom."

What do you think Dominik or the author of the article means by this?

Some good information in there, though not much that's particularly new to me. Still, it's nice to see this excellent film -- even in an apparently compromised form -- getting more respect. Can't wait to see it at the Egyptian. Hope he'll get a crack at rereleasing it in some form, maybe even through a company like Criterion, now that they have a relationship with WB. Also really hope Dominik's next film Blonde actually happens like it's supposed to. And even if he doesn't that he keeps making films.

I once described The Tree of Life to a friend as "the fastest 'slow' film you'll ever see." So yeah, I do get exactly what he's talking about. Malick's films share uncommonly contemplative moods and unusually (for cinema) interior points of view, but, if you're paying full attention, the filmmaking from shot to shot and the storytelling from moment to moment move more briskly than many so-called action movies. I feel the same way about Bresson. And I'm always just as surprised to hear his films labeled "slow."

Yeah, calling a film "slow" or "fast" makes very little sense in that context. It's all about the pacing. A well-paced movie that's contemplative and plotless is going to seem faster than a poorly paced movie that's full of overt action. Now, it can be hard to quantify exactly why something is well or poorly paced (editing rhythm, shot composition, nonrepetitiveness of story elements, etc.) but it's clear that when you're sitting in front of the film and it engages you throughout, then it's well-paced and hence doesn't seem slow.

Roger Deakins Laments Loss Of The 4-Hour Version Of ‘The Assassination of Jesse James’

It simply isn't going to happen. And while I would like to see it just to see what they shot, if most of that unreleased hour is post-assassination, I am not sure it would add much that the current epilogue doesn't do more efficiently in its compacted space.

The last time Dominik spoke about the movie publicly in 2016, he said that even the Criterion Collection wasn’t interested in releasing it (which seems crazy and probably no longer true, one imagines).

Why? What would change in 4 years

FrauBlucher wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:40 pm The Unloved by Scout Tafoya

Just a quick aside: Tafoya has quite a few of these and they are generally very good. The project is, in and of itself, a noble pursuit. If you can stand Tafoya's sad-sackery (whether you believe it is genuine or schtick), these are easily worth your time.

Doesn't the Directors Guild of America offer some protections with filmmakers in instances like this? I can't understand how a film less than 15 years old
can have a radically different cut just completely junked. Why didn't they deposit a copy at the AMPAS? It's just maddening and infuriating that this
is the same studio that is not probably spending $100 million + to redo Justice League

I just rewatched this for the 3rd time and I don't understand any hate this movie gets. The acting, writing, cinematography and music are flawless. I hate saying this, because it's so overused, but it's a modern masterpiece and would fit along nicely in the Criterion collection. I remember rumors that were talked about years ago saying that they weren't interested, but given some of the recent titles (which out of respect, I'll keep to myself), how could that literally be possible?!

Just dropping in to share something I saw recently: a five-part series on YouTube (by James Varley) about The Assassination of Jesse James, reading it as a kind of ghost story but also a meditation on the nature of storytelling. Lots of well-chosen clips from a wide range of arthouse classics, and a great analysis (in part 1) of the history of Jesse James on screen. In Part 5 he makes a fascinating connection between Céline and Julie Go Boating and the Ford brothers' re-enactment of the assassination (theatrical make-up, stilted acting, compulsive repetition, etc.).

The algorithm clearly doesn't like this guy, but it would be nice to see him getting more attention as I feel like it's rare to see this level of analysis on YouTube.

It seems to me that this is pretty much acknowledged as a masterpiece. i try not to like it, but i do.
and pitt's and affleck's performances are mesmerizing, the whole movie is like you're sitting there, in a trance.

Why would you try not to like something that you like

Because i almost never like westerns. so i came to it in a negative way.
the first 1/3 of the movie is slow. it's only in the circa 2nd half that the whole thing kind of takes off...

And i think this trance state is what dominik was at least partly trying to accomplish with 'blonde'. and it does work the first time you watch it. but blonde is not a rewatchable movie. one time is more than enough.

I dunno if he's going for "trance"-like states. Dominik seems very interested in relationships and codes of conduct and how expectations shift or are inherently different between people, intimate or otherwise. Chopper deals with an antisocial personality type who nonetheless tries and struggles to comprehend and engage with others in some strange scenes (he relays confusion calmly while being stabbed); this film certainly draws those kinds of vulnerable and sensitive dynamics between many characters; Killing Them Softly is squarely focused on a dog-eat-dog world but one where people do care about each other and make attempts to soften or change plans of actions based on sensitivities or expectations; and Blonde amplifies that disconnect while affirming the desire to connect. Perhaps that's vague, but my point is that Dominik seems more interested in sobering us to tangible dignity and worth in people in a quasi-humanist position, all while working in milieus that are extremely tough and don't support that kind of worldview. The dissonance is fascinating, but he seems to favor the concrete over the abstract, even if that's creating a transient vacating state with experimental style to get at that sobering state.

the 'trance' thing that i'm describing is in jesse james and blonde. admittedly quite a bit in chopper too.
Killing Them Softly is completely different from the above films. and is still, by far, his best film.
i think anyone who's tried to watch Blonde a 2nd time had a real hard time doing so.
to me, Blonde is a failure, and it's a shame that he wasted probably over 5 years on making this movie. because the guy doesn't come out with a new movie very often.

Meanwhile I think each film he makes bests the one before it, and I hope he gets the opportunity to make another one