Why are Universal re-issuing Friedkin's "Sorcerer" on Feb. 8th?

Gordon McMurphy · 01-25-2005, 05:28 PM

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...v=glance&s=dvd

The cover and specs are the same as the previous edition; what gives?

The old debate about the aspect ratio is still confounding, as all of Friedkin's films on DVD are in anamorphic 1.85:1; this film, of course has never had a widescreen release and the previous DVD transfer was pretty awful.

This is a flawed film, but has some superb moments and I'd love to hear a Friedkin commentary some day.

Does anyone have any info on this re-release, if it is indeed happening?

SteveGon · 01-25-2005, 05:43 PM

Could just be a price reduction, but I don't recall the previous MSRP as I bought my copy cheap and used (and didn't realize it was fullscreen). I would love to see a widescreen release of Sorcerer.

Not surprisingly, it's a Universal release.

Gordon McMurphy · 01-25-2005, 06:41 PM

No, the MSRP is the same as before; $14.98.

It's probably just a listing error.

Sean Richardson · 01-26-2005, 10:46 AM

For a while, the disc was coming up on E-bay and Amazon as OOP, so it's possible that they're just putting the same disc back in print (which is good, I suppose, even if it is fullscreen with no features; better to be in print than out). I've heard Friedkin wanted it in fullscreen, dunno if that's true or just justifying the bad release.

Scott Kimball · 01-26-2005, 11:04 AM

Of course, you could always opt for the original: "Wages of Fear"

A great film and the DVD is from Criterion...

I like "Sorcerer" too, but I've been waiting for a quality release. Probably be waiting for awhile.

-Scott

**HTF Ads**

Andre Bijelic · 01-26-2005, 12:19 PM

"Sorcerer" was originally a Universal/Paramount co-production. Does anyone know if Paramount has put together a decent version of this film in another region?

walter o · 01-26-2005, 02:30 PM

when this was issued on LD, Friedkin did say he prefered this film on fullscreen, despite much cropping (it looked like it was shot full 1:85 without matting when i compared the LD with the old cable airing, as the cable airng had more picture info but squeezed ). it would be nice if they put the overture back in though.

Felix Martinez · 01-26-2005, 10:03 PM

I love the original Wages of Fear, but I adore Sorcerer. As ugly as the current transfer is, it actually works for the film. It's one of those productions that every few scenes makes you go: "how'd they get that on film??" I also love the pacing, the music. And I don't know how the hell they got away with a PG on this one!

Keith Paynter · 01-26-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

it looked like it was shot full 1:85

Sorcerer was shot for 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen. I never saw the original, but I ran a 16mm anamorphic print for our University film program back in the early 80's.

[c]

[/c]

The opening credit sequence is squeezed. That's usually a giveaway. The simulated unsqueezed image on the right more closely resembles the logo on the cover art.

Sometimes anamorphic films will be cheated for full-frame video by using some slight squeezing to get more L/R information into the 4:3 frame. If the actors look like Twiggy, that's your clue - prime example, Little Darlings uses this full-framing technique.

Mark Edward Heuck · 01-27-2005, 03:46 AM

Don't be so sure on that theory. When 1.85 feature films are reduced to 16mm prints, often times they are "adapted scope," so that the movie is presented without dead space top and bottom, as it would be were it transferred from an unmatted 1.33 image. Sometimes, the filmmaker shoots 1.85 in a "hard matte" anyhow (such as ALIENS), and there is no dead space to open up, so rather than push into the image and increase the grain, the reduction will be converted to scope.

Here's an example: Michael Ritchie's comedy AN ALMOST PERFECT AFFAIR was released on VHS by Paramount in a squeezed transfer, leading me to think it was shot 2.35. But the DVD is presented at 1.85. I did a test, running both the tape and DVD in sync, and there was no missing picture information in either copy: Paramount had used a 16mm adapted scope source for the old tape transfer.

Thus, I suspect that SORCERER may have some of the same inherent transfer quirks. Viewing the film on laserdisc (which is likely the exact same transfer for the DVD), I noticed a slight amount of pan-scanning, but not enough to denote a scope release. IIRC, Friedkin abstained from scope most of his career for the same reasons Scorsese did, fearing how bad the transfer would look on video, and only with the advent of Super 35 technology did they begin to shoot wider films. (So far, Friedkin made only RULES OF ENGAGEMENT in scope)