Ruthless People - Terrible DVD (1 Viewer)

[Scott Weinberg]

All legitimate gripes aside, Ruthless People ranks among my all-time favorite comedies. Seeing as how it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a Special Edition of this title, I'll soon be picking this one up too.

 

[Paul E. Fox II]

This is one of the movies that I'll own on DVD regardless of what is said. This probably wasn't something that was a fantastic transfer originally. The ONE THING that I look for is OAR. If that's there, then the movie is sold...anamorphic or not. I strive to get anamorphically enhanced discs myself but in the case of a release of a film that I want in my collection, I'll just suffer the consequences as being able to watch the movie more than justifies nearly every other problem with a "sub-standard DVD".
Now to rant a bit...
[rant]I'm constantly amazed at how a group of movie enthusiasts can punish themselves by not owning a movie they love just because it doesn't look as good as *insert title of Mega Blockbuster that has been completely restored to a level purity only witnessed by certain highly advanced civilizations now extinct here*[/rant]
I really love movies and can overlook most, if not all technical problems as long as the movie is there. I was never able to step up to the Laser Disc platform and the difference between a Bad DVD transfer and VHS is still miles apart to my unsophisticated eye. I know that some of you think that Tech Rules, but to me the Movie is the Master!

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I'm wondering if this film is matted properly. Watching the old full screen transfer, in one of the scenes I can see the blocking on the floor of a scene (when Sandy is showing Barbara her designs in the mirror). It was clear as day. This new release covers most of the blocking up, but it's still partially visible. But still, it's Ruthless People on DVD! I love that movie!

Neil

 

[JamesCS]

If there are no extras or commentary, why did it take so long for the studio to release this movie on dvd?

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I watched this on VHS when it came out and remember it looking not quite so good then compared to other VHS transfers. Sometimes movies are just designed to look bad.

 

[Dmitry]

I would say (IMHO) this DVD is definitely not terrible. It looks sharper and has better colors than Russia House (which was discussed not so long ago) and even that I would only rate as bad. Of course if you compare it to the likes of Fifth Element it sucks but it's not much worse than other movies of its age that didn't undergo special restoration procedures. Of course it may be that after reading this thread I was expecting something of Madacy or Simitar (YUCK) quality.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's funny how others based their dvd purchases on just one opinion.

Here's another: it's pretty bad. I'm giving it a "C-" because a few shots look quite good. They're rare, but they're there. Most of the time, though, I thought it was rather ugly. Lots of grain, grit, specks, nicks. Muddy colors - somewhat typical for the era, but a bit worse than usual. Really, it's the print defects that kill it, though. Love the flick - the DVD's a major disappointment. Why'd Tin Men get almost a special edition while the vastly superior RP received nothing? Life ain't fair!

 

[Chuck L]

I would like to believe that what the original poster was trying hard to imply is that if Disney/Touchstone continues to release such titles in such horrible forms, what is to say that will not continue with other releases from them.

Granted, on the family fare, Disney is none other…yet when it comes to their other pictures, it does seem a lot like ‘who cares?’

There have been a lot of people talking about how the film did not look that great in the theater during its original release. You all must have wonderful memories but I find it hard to really remember just how great Star Wars: PM was when it was released and that was just a short time ago. I can tell you this much though, I do recall seeing two years ago, from a film that meant something to me, a theatrical print in 3-D of Friday The 13th: Part 3 BUT I do know that film looked better than the current DVD of Ruthless People. And this is from a print that has been in circulation, constant circulation, since it's release in 1983!

Basically, if they continue to put crap out and we continue to buy it, which is what they will release. Why go through the hassle of restoring a film and making it look presentable if people are simply going to say, oh well, it is a great movie and therefore I will overlook it’s presentation.

That sentiment would not be said say a lack luster transfer would have happened to Citizen Kane or Lawrence of Arabia. Just because it’s a comedy with Bette Midler we have to settle for poorly delivered DVD? I don’t think so. The technology is there to make it look better; all they had to do was use it. But they seem to be more concerned about the quantity that they release of the Touchstone titles and not the quality. Seeing how this film looks does make me question the outcome of the other DVD’s coming from them and whether my personal income will help them out.

 

[John Berggren]

I'm interested in what Robert ended up thinking of his copy. I had this in my hands at Costco yesterday while I picked up Dick Tracy, but I can't decide if I remember it being funny because it was funny at the time, or because it will remain funny in perpetuity. Just can't decide...

 

[Brian McHale]

Personally, I wish more studios would do this: put out back catalog titles in watchable anamorphic OAR at affordable prices.

There are so many movies that I would like to have on DVD. If studios put too much effort into individual titles that aren't of the blockbuster variety, a lot of movies might never make it to DVD at all.

My recommendation to studios:

Spend the time and the effort to do a great job on the movies that deserve it (Citizen Kane, Casablanca) and those that will be huge sellers (Star Wars, Indiana Jones), but crank out affordable, bare bones, watchable, anamorphic (where applicable) OAR versions of the rest of your catalog.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Really, it's the print defects that kill it, though. Love the flick - the DVD's a major disappointment. Why'd Tin Men get almost a special edition while the vastly superior RP received nothing? Life ain't fair!

Coincidently, both my Ruthless People and Tin Men DVDs arrived last night as well as a replecement, 2nd printing copy of Criterion's The Magic Flute. I watched all three. Worst transfer: no contest -- Criterion's The Magic Flute. Numerous very visable and distracting problems with the source elements. Granted it is an older film than Ruthless People, but heck, I've seen plenty of mid '70s (and older) movies looking gorgeous on DVD. No extras on the Criterion either, and of course, a higher list price. Ruthless People while certainly far from ideal, is a perfectly OK anamorphic transfer of so so source elements. Really, it didn't bother me one bit.
As far as it being "vastly superior" to Tin Men -- come on! I love Ruthless People, it is a very funny if dated comedy, but you can't even compare it to superbly written, brilliantly acted, fresh as the day it was made movie like Tin Men. I'm sorry, but Tin Men was the one deserving the SE.
Ted

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As far as it being "vastly superior" to Tin Men -- come on! I love Ruthless People, it is a very funny if dated comedy, but you can't even compare it to superbly written, brilliantly acted, fresh as the day it was made movie like Tin Men. I'm sorry, but Tin Men was the one deserving the SE.

Eye of the beholder, baby!
I've not seen Tin Men in a long time; I hope to check it out over the weekend. However, I recall it with little enthusiasm, whereas RP is one of my all-time faves. It's the one that I clearly thought deserved the SE!
(And I agree that PARTS of RP are dated - the fashions and music. However, I think the rest of the movie remains fresh and hilarious...)