– opportunity to run riot with the colors and they do.
Dreams has some of the most beautiful visuals you’re
going to see short of the next world and this transfer
does them full, full justice. It is one of those rare instances
where
justified by the visual content of the film you’re seeing.
Which only makes me the angrier at whoever did the cast-
ing (they needed a star for
the investment in this case, just the opposite). It’s too bad
they can’t digitize him out of the film and put Jimmy Stew-
art in. That way the elaborate structure and plotline of the
movie would have had the solid foundation it needed.
Yes, you should rent. And I guess fairness requires me
to say that the film is developing a cult following; some
folks quite like it. I did not. I squirmed and watched the
clock and picked holes in every illogical loop in the film,
which I wouldn’t have done had I “bought in,” that is,
believed in the ability of the main character to love with
that degree of passion and sacrifice. (Oh yes, the ending is
just as sappy as a maple in Vermont.) What a beautiful,
beautiful looking DVD. Oddly, I don’t remember a thing
about the sound, so engrossed was I in the visual.
Barbarella. Roger Vadim, director. l968. Dolby mono.
2.35:1. 98 minutes. Paramount.
At last, Barbarella done justice. The laserdisc widescreen
transfer was nowhere near so good as the one here and the
mono sound on that issue was shrill and horrid, like some of
the music tracks on an Italian horror film. Not so here –
smooth as could be and given the importance of the
Jane Fonda has long since turned her back on
(or even sexy) roles, and so it is easy to forget just exactly
how beautiful she was when she was married to Roger
Vadim. She alone is worth the price of admission and you
certainly would get more than one eyeful. The film’s PG rat-
ing gave me pause for thought. It would, with its acres of
revealed skin and suggestive, how is it they say it – “sexual
situations”? – get a sterner rating today.
I like the quality of the transfer. It is just shy of being in
my top ranking (but nevertheless, some thing like an
has made me try to devise
transfers. The differences between the best and those just
below that exalted level are actually quite small. And I’m not
yet sure how to quantify those most minor differences. The
very best transfers have a quality of coherency, almost like
the concept of “continuousness” I devised for audioland edi-
fication, about the image, maybe a smooth fluidity and con-
sistency of resolution that makes the picture seem, especial-
ly on a big screen, almost seamless.
Noted in Passing
The Last Starfighter. 1984. 5.l Surround. 2.35:1.
Enhanced for 16.9. 101 minutes. Universal.
Fairly simple and sorta sweet story about a guy and his video
game, called “The Last Starfighter.” The object is to shoot
down alien spaceships. What he doesn’t know is that,
upon becoming the highest scorer, he will actually get
a chance to do just that in fact. It’s a recruiting tool.
Lotsa digital effect of the sort Disney pioneered in Tron
(which was the film of genuine historical importance for
these kinds of special effects). Nice widescreen transfer, if
a little soft looking despite a high bit rate, with quite good
sound in terms of bass, dynamics, though with not too
much emphasis on surrounds per se.
On the other hand, the movie’s fairly bland, maybe a
Silverado. Lawrence Kasdan, director. 1985. 5.1 sur-
round. 1.85:1. Enhanced. 135 minutes. Columbia.
The box says the movie’s aspect is 2.35:1, but ’taint so. Sil -
verado was originally shot in what they call Super 35, a
process favored by James Cameron, one that I don’t find
Super visually. The idea is to shoot the movie full frame,
while also composing for an aspect of 2.35:1 within the
frame for theatrical release (the
goes to video, where there is, as some would have it, near-
ly twice as much picture information). It was a treat in its
wider aspect; much is lost at 1.85 in terms of the film’s look
and architecture. And I think portions of the transfer look a
bit brown and grainy. Not to my liking. Silverado itself,
despite flaws, is a hugely entertaining western. I hope it will
be done “right” one of these days. But this wasn’t that day.
The Ugly. Scott Reynolds, director. l998 (US release
date).
This
film from New Zealand looks like the work of a major new tal-
ent. Its first 40 minutes (or so) are as good as anything I’ve seen
lately on the horror circuit. The sleek visuals and
ty color schemes add measurably to the pleasure of watching
it. And the sound is surprisingly good, if entirely too heavy on
the subterranean bass (á la the madhouse scene in Silence of
the Lambs) and a bit light on some of the dialog (unfortunate-
ly no subtitles to help us over the rough patches). During that
first 40 minutes, before we know which way the writer is going
with the story, the movie is filled with real possibilities of being
a minor classic in the
You begin to wonder if the mad patient in the asylum
hasn’t driven everyone crazy and what a picture it would
have been had this been the way it went. Alas, despite
some wonderful
doesn’t follow through on, things take a predictable turn
toward the conventions of the genre. The use of black
blood for the gore sequences actually struck me as an art-
ful way of distancing us from the slaughter – it is far from
the only imaginative touch, but all to little avail. Shown
unenhanced on the big screen in Room 1, it was a terrific
looking disc. Not all that different from the average
“enhanced” disc. The liner notes on The Ugly say the
movie is for “16 x 9 widescreens” which led me to believe
it had been enhanced, but no, it wasn’t.
