What's new
Signup for GameFly to rent the newest 4k UHD movies!

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,595
Real Name
Robert Harris
I recall the 2004 version of this film being fun entertainment, and with no knowledge of the 2024, I initially went to the inter-web for some public opinion on the positives and negatives of the two films, how they're the same and different.

The first reference I found was from what appears to be an on-line study group called Q-Anon, which presumably discusses public questions anonymously, although though I'm not quite certain how that works.

What I learned is a theory in that while the films were distributed by Paramount, there are reportedly tendrils reaching out toward Universal via their relationship with NBC, which hosts a TV show entitled Saturday Night Live, with which some of the participants of both films have been known to interrelate.

I'm not certain how this pertains to Paramount, which is tied in with CBS.

The differences seem to be few, except that the 2004 is based upon a book, while the 2024 is based upon the same book as well as a musical.

While the 2004 is populated by a bunch of twenty-somethings, which also seems true of the 2024. Which also means that most of the "teen" cast of the 2024 would not have been permitted to see the 2004 when it was released.

Tina Fey, who appeared on Saturday Night Live, appears in both as the same character, adding to the suspicion that there's something untoward occurring. Lindsay Lohan also appears in both, but as different characters, which must have been confusing.

Then there's the case of Tim Meadows, who appears in both, also as the same character and still with that stubborn wrist problem, which may be some sort of a running joke. I'm betting that some other SNL folks are also hidden away in here.

So...

What have we?

Two films with virtually the same storyline and characters, produced two decades apart, and both in color, although was shot on film and the other digital.

The decision here seems to be that if one likes the film, and there's a lot to like, which one do you add to your collection, or both?

My vote would be both, if for no other reason than the 2004 lives within an extremely rare package. It's pink. Which I'm quite certain is a first. We've blue, black, clear, but pink?

This is a big deal for packaging collectors and investors. The 2004 is also set up within a slipcover, and because of the reverse design, is includes yet another bit of packaging giving us all the pertinent information.

The 2024 has been released in a black (standard issue) 4k holder, and while it has only a slipcover, said slip should be highly desirable as it's glossy, reflective and has the title logo printed in more of a satin finish. The package works. It also comes with a free sticker discussing bonus features.

Question is - how do they look and sound?

In a word, Terrific.

The 2004 is virtually grainless. Whether it's the natural grain or has in some way been affected, I'm not certain, but it looks fine.

The 2024 was shot digitally, and also looks terrific.

Two great looking, modern productions, both with great tracks. The 2004 is Dolby TrueHD, while the 2024 is Dolby Atmos.

For at least Amanda Seyfried, the film herald a first appearance.

In the end, the 2024 will be found to be more socially updated, and may offend fewer viewers.

2004

Image – 10 (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 10 (Dolby TrueHD 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 8

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Yes

Worth your attention - 8

Slipcover rating - 6

Highly Recommended

2024

Image – 10 (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 10 (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 8

Worth your attention - 8

Slipcover rating - 4

Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Patrick McCart

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,215
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Mean Girls (the original, as I haven't seen the remake) feels a lot like a Preston Sturges comedy, with a dash of Lubitsch thrown in. Tina Fey's screenplay is that perfect. If you're expecting some chick flick, I think you'll be surprised by superb writing, great and funny performances, and enough heart to make it more than just a funny movie. I first saw this on digital HD (my wife was shocked I hadn't seen it yet), then saw it again theatrically at Alamo Drafthouse. One thing that surprised me about seeing it theatrically was how lovely the color and lighting look. This doesn't look at all like a cheap made-for-TV affair at all. Being a comedy shouldn't be an excuse for a film to look like garbage.

Definitely picking up the 4K.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,340
Messages
5,136,109
Members
144,358
Latest member
RandallFlagg
Recent bookmarks
0
SVS Outlet Sale
Top