Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2017, 07:08:20 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  Once Upon A Time In America (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Blu-ray
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Blu-ray  (Read 14829 times)
Novecento
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2011, 05:33:56 AM »

It looks good to me and I like how they have repaired the slightly off-coloring of the DVD. I'll definitely be buying this. 

Logged
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13707

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2011, 06:57:54 AM »

 Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro Afro

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13707

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2011, 01:47:09 PM »

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Once-Upon-a-Time-in-America-Blu-ray/16190/#Review

The money quote:
Quote
There already seems to be some (unfounded) controversy brewing over Once Upon a Time in America's AVC encoded 1080p image, in 1.78:1. I am probably one of the few people who saw the film theatrically (several times) in both its truncated and uncut versions, and it is my considered opinion that the film has never looked this good before. Overall there is a clarity and sharpness to this presentation which reveals whole new levels of fine detail. There is also a noticeable uptick in contrast and especially black values, at least in some scenes. Compare the opening moments of this Blu-ray with any previous home video version and the differences are striking. Not only are colors more beautifully saturated, black levels in the shadowy apartment reveal the glint of pearls around Noodles' moll's neck and other details which simply weren't readily visible in earlier incarnations. There are some niggling complaints which I'm sure some people will obsess over, but they are all endemic to the source material. Seemingly inexplicably, some shots are fuzzy and soft (almost always medium range shots, which argues toward the culprit being a lens), as in the medium shot of Noodles standing on a rural road as two bicyclists pedal by. Also some of the darker scenes are indeed murky, with some milky blacks, but again I'm firmly convinced these are inherent to the source material and not a result of any tinkering in the Blu-ray transfer. Some people have expressed concern over the film's length and the fact that it's "stuffed" onto one BD-50. Streaming rates hovered around 15-16 Mbps, certainly not incredibly robust, but also nothing to be very alarmed about. There really aren't many compression artifacts here of any real import.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
T.H.
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1771



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2011, 07:33:02 PM »

lol I didn't even know this was released yet and was shocked to see it for 15 USD. It was one of the best purchases of my life.

I also grabbed FOD and FAFDM b-rays for 10 each - I didn't know they were sold individually. I thought I was going to be forced to buy the (currently) overpriced collection.


Logged


Claudia, we need you to appear in LOST COMMAND. It's gonna revolutionize the war genre. What did you think of the script?
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2012, 07:21:45 PM »

DVD Savant's take.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3399time.html

Savant isn't a huge fan of the film, but I think most of his criticisms are fair ones.

I just watched the blu ray all the way through for the first time, so I took a look at this thread, and the Savant link.


After first discussing the chopped version, Savant then refers to  the 229MV with "In this more expansive version..." That's basically like discussing Mara Krupp and then calling Claudia Cardinale a "better-looking actress..." He's kind of understating a major point, this is not just a "more expansive version," it's an entirely different movie. But this is consistent with his general misunderstanding of the movie, which I'll discuss presently.

But his final paragraph is just ridiculous: "Leone once used flashbacks brilliantly, adding gravity to his genre characters in Once Upon a Time in the West and Duck You Sucker without a hint of expository dialogue. Since we never quite relate Noodles' opium-smoking to his other experiences, we can't exactly see why the convoluted time structure was necessary." Erickson seems completely oblivious to the dream theory,. Even if he disagrees with it, he should at least mention it, that would provide a possible explanation the "convoluted time structure" that so befuddles him. (Unless he specifically isn't mentioning it cuz he doesn't want to spoil the film, which I doubt, since it would answer his question), this is absolutely unforgivable. OUATIA is all about time, memories, fantasy, etc. Erickson's comments make it seem like he views this movie as a straight rags-to-riches, rise and fall gangster story. The movie is meaningless without the time structure. He misses the point of this movie entirely, which doesn't surprise me. (There are other things I disagree with him on (eg. I think the old-age makeup was brilliant) but that's just a matter of opinion so I won't waste my time with it).
  
Some critics are useless, but Erickson is actually worse than that; he is a detriment to cinema. I've been utterly disgusted the few times I've read his stuff, and I'm never again going to waste my time doing so again.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 07:33:08 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2012, 07:30:07 PM »

Strange. In his review of the DVD he writes:

Quote
The device of reducing De Niro to an Opium-soaked time-tripper, blending a ringing phone across decades of memories and flattening his personality into a hazy smile, doesn't compensate for the disconnect on the character/genre level. Reviewers who give up on putting together the puzzle of his personality sometimes theorize that much of the story is a dope dream conjured on the doss-house bed. Which is the same as saying the film is about nothing, and it's definitely not. This grandiose and impressive film is too intellectually aware, too convinced of its own significance. It lacks the genre resonance that Leone brought to his Westerns.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s861once.html

« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 07:31:28 PM by Groggy » Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2012, 07:39:28 PM »

Yes, that is strange.

But even in that quote from the dvd review I think Erickson makes the same mistake about the dream theory that I addressed in the other thread: he believes that if you support the dream theory then you lose all the themes that the 1968 scenes bring. That is ridiculous. All the important themes of the movie are just as applicable even if it is a dream. It's silly to think that just cuz the 1968 scenes are happening in a dream, they become devoid of all meaning or themes.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2012, 07:55:57 PM »

It has nothing to do with themes and everything to do with treating the audience like chumps.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2012, 08:20:50 PM »

It has nothing to do with themes and everything to do with treating the audience like chumps.

it's not like "and then he woke up, haha, we played a trick on you, it really didn't happen!!!" That would indeed be treating the audience like chumps. In this case, the dream is a significant part of the theme of the movie itself. So it's not like they pulled a fast one on us. I don't mean to debate the dream theory here, we've done that plenty in the other threads. My point is just that IF the dream theory is correct, that wouldn't be treating the audience like chumps, nor would it mean that the themes of the 1968 scenes are lost.  I would argue in fact that all these themes are strengthened by the fact that it's a dream

« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 02:32:15 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2012, 05:34:00 AM »

by the fact that it's a dream

Only that it is not a fact

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2012, 05:47:21 AM »

Only that it is not a fact

you either didn't read the rest of these posts, or are misunderstanding me or misinterpreting me intentionally.

I'll say this one final time: my intent here is NOT to debate the dream theory; we've done that already in other threads. My intent here was to state two points: A) that Erickson should have at least mentioned the dream theory, whether he supports it or not, for reasons explained above; and B) (the context of your quote) was that IF the dream theory is correct, that wouldn't eliminate all the themes of the 1968 scene; rather, it strengthens them. And therefore doesn't turn the audience into chumps either.... The point is simply that the dream theory should not be dismissed on the basis of claim that if the dream theory is correct, you lose the themes of 1968 or the audience is turned into chumps.... Yes, sometimes you have to say for the sake of argument, "IF X is true, how does that affect Y and Z?" Well, if the dream theory is true, that does not minimize the themes from 1968, nor does it turn the audience into chumps. That's the point. Your 8 word quotation of a part of a sentence I stated completely distorts what the discussion was about. The point of the discussion was not to re-litigate the underlying question of whether the dream theory is correct. It was only to discuss the effects of that argument, ie. depending on the answer to the dream theory debate, how does that affect the rest of the movie.

« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 05:50:01 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2012, 08:49:04 AM »

By the ghost of Jack Sprat, you must be trippin'!

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2012, 02:42:43 PM »

you either didn't read the rest of these posts, or are misunderstanding me or misinterpreting me intentionally.

I'll say this one final time: my intent here is NOT to debate the dream theory; we've done that already in other threads. My intent here was to state two points: A) that Erickson should have at least mentioned the dream theory, whether he supports it or not, for reasons explained above; and B) (the context of your quote) was that IF the dream theory is correct, that wouldn't eliminate all the themes of the 1968 scene; rather, it strengthens them. And therefore doesn't turn the audience into chumps either.... The point is simply that the dream theory should not be dismissed on the basis of claim that if the dream theory is correct, you lose the themes of 1968 or the audience is turned into chumps.... Yes, sometimes you have to say for the sake of argument, "IF X is true, how does that affect Y and Z?" Well, if the dream theory is true, that does not minimize the themes from 1968, nor does it turn the audience into chumps. That's the point. Your 8 word quotation of a part of a sentence I stated completely distorts what the discussion was about. The point of the discussion was not to re-litigate the underlying question of whether the dream theory is correct. It was only to discuss the effects of that argument, ie. depending on the answer to the dream theory debate, how does that affect the rest of the movie.

As long as it is a theory it can't be a fact.

I can't blame Erickson for not mentioning it, I wouldn't have done it either. Maybe if I was writing a large essay on OuTA I would spend the Dream theory one or two sentences.
But he is wrong about calling OuTA a film with flashbacks. Not even the youth part is a real flashback. Very different to the use of flashbacks in Leone's westerns.

And if the interpretation of the 1968 parts is the same with or without the dream, then for what do we need it?

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2012, 02:52:31 PM »

As long as it is a theory it can't be a fact.

I can't blame Erickson for not mentioning it, I wouldn't have done it either. Maybe if I was writing a large essay on OuTA I would spend the Dream theory one or two sentences.
But he is wrong about calling OuTA a film with flashbacks. Not even the youth part is a real flashback. Very different to the use of flashbacks in Leone's westerns.

And if the interpretation of the 1968 parts is the same with or without the dream, then for what do we need it?

I didn't say that the interpretation of the 1968 scenes is identical whether or not it's a dream. But the point is that the 1968 scenes aren't devoid of all meaning just because it's a dream.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2012, 04:59:30 PM »

As long as it is a theory it can't be a fact.

Until drink realizes this, any discussion on this topic is futile.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.029 seconds with 19 queries.