2006 DVD Releases Thread

[Jim]

They also offer a two-disc "extended" version, but it's now at a higher cost. 

Is it a longer cut of the film? If so, how much longer

[Cory Chaos]

and Cueron's "dark" direction didn't really work, IMO.

Funny, that's why from a filmmaking standpoint I think #3 was the best of the bunch so far.  It was more serious than the first two and you didn't have to be a little kid to get into it as much.

I didn't like that it switched gears like that. I don't go to see Potter films for artistry in cinematography. It was too dark for me to enjoy, almost downright morbid, and they aged the characters too fast. "Goblet of Fire" went a whole different direction, had a stronger story, made it more epic and adventurous, thus more fun for me.

Quick question:  What exactly does the second disk from Harry Potter cover?  I got "scene it" as a bonus to buying the regular one-disk edition of Harry Potter IV but I don't own the game so it's rather a wash.  Should I go back and get the 2-disk version?  All I really want to see is the cut scenes and the regular movie. 

The "Scene It" disc is only a few samples, not the entire game. The one disc edition is bare bones. The 2 disc is loaded. Additional scenes, cast convos, 4th film reflections, 9 Triwizard Tournament segments, DVD-ROM goodies.

There was about 3 minutes worth of marital infidelity in that movie IIRC.  I wouldn't suggest it's a focal point.

SPOILERS.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

There was the "Wall of Shame" shots. There were passing around of their wives photos, commenting on their cheating. There was the viewing of a sex tape *** "The Deer Hunter" that definately lasted more than 3 minutes. There was Jake Gyllenhaal infront of the mirror "throwing up" sand when he saw his wife's image. There was the letter he recieved from his wife, more or less admitting her cheating. These were all tossed about the film, being revisited...and for what? It was filler, IMO. It made up for a large part of the movie.

It may have made for a nice book, but his little vacation to "war" was hardly movie material. **** happens, it's the armed forces, and "Jarhead" didn't show me anything new, other than ex-cons like Peter Saarsgard's character can simply lie about not serving jail time, and still wind up in Iraq, serving our country, and not even had a background check performed. It wasn't any more successful at capturing the savage decline of soliders at war than FMJ, which, while suffering a 2nd act shift itself, was still 100 times better, IMO.

[Rob]

It was too dark for me to enjoy, almost downright morbid

Have you read the books?  Each one gets scarier than the last, starting at book 3.

Goblet of Fire, if anything, wasn't nearly dark enough on the screen.  The book was borderline terrifying.

[Cory Chaos]

I meant visually. Lack of colors depress me. That's why I fell asleep in Corpse Bride.

[ruiner]

I'm looking forward to A History of Violence (release is next week) even though I have not seen it -

For those of you who have seen it, did you like it?

[Rob]

For those of you who have seen it, did you like it?

Most definitely.

[jadesfire]

Thanks Cory H., I'll be returning it once Chilly's Wally world gets more in!!

[Cory Chaos]

I'm looking forward to A History of Violence (release is next week) even though I have not seen it -

For those of you who have seen it, did you like it?

Not at all. Cronenberg, to me, furthur solidifed my opinion that his stuff doesn't belong in mainstream cinema. The premise was interesting, but never went anywhere. All brain, no guts if you ask me. Not to mention the lack of chemistry between Maria Bello and Aragorn, and their contrived sex scenes. Blech. 

[ruiner]

Wow, conflicting opinions between you and Rob - who would've thunk?!

 

[Rob]

Yeah...

Cronenberg is one of my all time favorite director's - the man's a genius and A History of Violence only bolstered my opinion in that regard.

[Cory Chaos]

He's fairly overrated and forumlaic, IMHO. Granted, he's a great director, but art-house types tend to overpraise him whereas I see him as a hit or miss filmmaker, who pretty much peaked in the 80's, save "Naked Lunch".

I think the term "genius" is grossly overused, especially in entertainment. He's creative, and was once inventive, but using the same elements time and time again, and then applying them to a movie that they don't work in doesn't fly.

[Darth_Anton]

I have to agree with Rob. History of Violence is one of Cronebergs better films and I'm amazed at how he can take a straight forward story and put his stamp on it. Does Cronenberg belong in the mainstreem cinema? Of course not, he's an artist, so it's great to see when the mainstreem catches up with him.

Has anyone watched the new Harry Potter DVD yet? I saw it twice in the theater, and I can swear that they added an effect to the scene with Victor Krum's school making their entrance into Hogwarts. I don't recall a blurr effect to their tweriling staffs in the theater.

[Rob]

He's fairly overrated and forumlaic, IMHO. Granted, he's a great director, but art-house types tend to overpraise him whereas I see him as a hit or miss filmmaker, who pretty much peaked in the 80's, save "Naked Lunch".

I think the term "genius" is grossly overused, especially in entertainment. He's creative, and was once inventive, but using the same elements time and time again, and then applying them to a movie that they don't work in doesn't fly.

You seem to have edited out the part of your post where you said that "the difference here is that I share a basis for my opinion; others don't." but I'll just say that I don't really feel the need to sit here and defend David Cronenberg to you.  His talent and ability to make critically acclaimed films isn't on trial.  And for the record, however well you think you explained the basis for your opinion, you didn't say a whole heck of a lot beyond "fairly overrated and forumlaic" and "hit or miss."  A few buzz words for sure, but there wasn't any real substance to that declaration of his product as overhyped and deficient in the genius department.  You call him 'hit or miss,' I call him understated and unflinching.  More often than not, it's the viewership that's hit or miss.

Cronenberg has been at it for decades and is a master of his craft.  He possesses a unique sensibility, a keen eye, a deep understanding of subtlety (complimented by the ability to appropriately forego subtlety to acheive a desired effect), and while his films are often rooted in science fiction and/or horror, they almost always deal with far deeper themes that function on multiple levels.  He does about a million things right when it comes to filmmaking and story telling.  'A History of Violence' was vintage Cronenberg and dealt with many of humanity's less desireable traits in a gritty, entertaining, and meaningful way - while succeeding on a basic storytelling level as well. 

I'll agree with you that the label 'genius' is used too often when it comes to the entertainment industry - but for Cronenberg it is 100% applicable - he's spent 35 or so years earning it.  For me 'A History of Violence' only goes to show that he hasn't peaked yet.  I'm looking very forward two his next two projects 'London Fields' and 'I Kill.'  If 'A History of Violence' is any indication, they'll be fantastic.

[Cory Chaos]

That wasn't so hard, now was it? 

As for Cronie's history, he hit his stride long ago. 3 movies in the past 3 decades; Videodrome, The Fly, and Naked Lunch IN that order.

That's my opinion, and all I feel I need to say about it. "A History fo Violence" aka "The Hulk 2", started off on the right foot, somewhat capitivating storyline, then delved into a preachy melodrama with a pathetic ending and absolutely no chemistry, with his signature bits tossed in to remind you it wasn't Darren Aronofski or Gregg Araki behind the lens afterall.

[Rob]

It wasn't hard at all - I spent the better part of four years in school composing simlar thoughts on a wide variety of film topics. 

One final note, Hulk was literally the biggest pile of **** ever put onto celluloid; relating A History of Violence to it in any way is about as far off base as one could be.