Blu-ray Review Brainstorm Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Robertson]

Yes, thanks for those links, James! I've always admired Douglas Trumbull and learned some new stuff about him today.

While I also agree that Warner could have done something special with this Blu-Ray release, I am not displeased with the presentation they've provided. It is a typical Warner release, but I was happy with the previous DVD and like the increased video resolution and audio fidelity that the new disc has to offer.

On a related note, what do you all think of Warner's new menu design? I hate it! Even when it wasn't always aesthetically pleasing, I did like that they at least attempted to "theme" the menus on their previous releases. I hope this generic menu design is not a new trend. I suspect it will be for catalog titles of this type.

 

[SilverWook]

Like Tron, this movie was a little ahead of what most audiences knew about technology at the time, with it's own version of "virtual reality" and even computer hacking. Those barely portable suitcase terminals, with their little CRT screens and acoustic modems are charmingly quaint now. And I still want one!
I've long wondered if the computer tapes that looked like a hybrid of Laserdiscs and broadcast videotape were a real technology, or just invented for the film.

 

[ShowsOn]

It is NORMAL that the 1.85 panoramic image is windowboxed on the right and left sides, it is the way it was shown in the movie theaters, the widescreen 70mm image is supposed to get wider and bigger than the standard image, not the other way ! It's the same thing at the beginning of "The Road Warrior" for instance...

I spoke to Trumbull early last year including about this film and he told me that even at the première screening the projectionist stuffed up the projection because he was confused about the aspect ratio changes.

The only way this experience will work properly @ home is via projection with an anamorphic lens. That way, constant image height is maintained, and the windowboxing isn't apparent. Some films were never designed for the home experience. This is one of them. It's a shame they harvested from a 35mm source, though; ideally, WB would have sourced from both 35mm and 65mm elements, but since only diehard fans of the film are going to buy it, they probably figured it wan't worth the expense.

Well the entire film would have to be one big optical, which means it is a generation down, and an optical one at that, from an inter-positive. Including with all dirt and what have you printed into the image.
If they could find the original negatives they could reconstruct a much nicer looking version of the film, but that won't happen because it would cost a fortune and the film just isn't that popular.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

I believe the "unnamable executive" was David Begelman.

There's a great interview here with Douglas Trumbull that covers much more than Brainstorm and it's worth reading. However, this is a relevant excerpt. I think it's best to understand the film as he said as an "unfinished symphony". In the conventional, not 70mm showing, I recall the bars by the way.
http://parallax-view.org/2012/02/11/breaking-new-ground-has-always-been-in-the-medium-itself-an-interview-with-douglas-trumbull/

[Question:] Your second film as a director, Brainstorm, faced some serious disasters and was almost shelved before completion. Can you talk about it?
You probably know that Natalie Wood died during the making of Brainstorm. There’s a very long story about that that I don’t talk about publicly because it would open up a can of worms. It is so deep and so horrendous that I don’t go into it. But she was killed in an accident, let’s leave it at that. Within hours, the studio declared “force majeure,” which is an act of nature. It’s the one clause in everybody’s contract that allows you to get out of all deals. So within hours, me and everyone else on the film was fired and the movie was terminated and the sets were locked up and we weren’t quite finished shooting. And I was taken into this meeting with an unnamable executive who later committed suicide, and he said “Doug, don’t try to finish this movie.” I said, “I’m a movie director. Movie directors are supposed to go through hell. We’re in the trenches, we’re going to damn the torpedoes and get our movies made no matter what goes wrong. That’s our job. I can get this movie done.” I said, “By the way, there was only three scenes left for Natalie to shoot.” It was all shot out of continuity and the end had already been shot. I said, “I can finish this movie with Natalie. There’s an easy way. I can just restage it a little differently. I’ve got all the coverage, I don’t need any fake shots of hands, I don’t need to fake any voices, I don’t need any over the shoulder floppy hat cover shots. I can do this. All you need to do is let me in the editing room and I’ll show you.” They said, “No, you can’t come back, we don’t want you in the cutting room, you can’t finish this movie.” And that began this big battle with MGM management to try to get my movie made.
It was the most horrendous experience of my life, there was a lot of subterfuge going on and they didn’t really have the money to finish the movie. I think there was motive. And we just fought it out. They said, “Absolutely we are not going to finish this movie,” so Lloyd’s of London, the insurance company, went head to head with MGM and said “Okay, we’ll finish the movie.” So I got the movie finished, not with the budget I wanted, not with all the special effects and fantastic stuff I had in my mind, but we were able to get it finished. But by then MGM was under new management and they were set on showing that the previous management didn’t know what they were doing. And so that movie did not get support from the studio and publicly, because I’d had this big battle to try to get the movie done, it became, quote, “Natalie Wood’s last film,” when she was really a minor player in the movie. It was really just an opportunity for her to make a comeback. So the movie just kind of became derailed. I’m glad I got it done, I’m much more happy that I got it done than to know that I had a film in a vault forever that no one was ever going to see. It’s kind of an unfinished symphony of mine, but I got it done.

Another fascinating interview, on the future, is here:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/douglas-trumbull-a-writerproducerdirectorengineerinventor-looks-forward

 

[JParker]

I spoke to Trumbull early last year including about this film and he told me that even at the première screening the projectionist stuffed up the projection because he was confused about the aspect ratio changes.
Well the entire film would have to be one big optical, which means it is a generation down, and an optical one at that, from an inter-positive. Including with all dirt and what have you printed into the image.
If they could find the original negatives they could reconstruct a much nicer looking version of the film, but that won't happen because it would cost a fortune and the film just isn't that popular.

But look what Warner's done for Chariots of Fire. Granted, Brainstorm is no Chariots but they have the technical ability. With Trumbull, they could have prepared a Director's edition from the 70mm elements, it's not like there was three hours of footage like Lawrence for an expensive scan. For a Blu-ray of this film not to feature the quality of the 70mm elements, and no involvement of the Director, is a deal breaker for me.
And I wonder if Warner's Blu-ray of 2001 was just a 2K scan?
And if you speak to Trumbull, does he follow this forum? What are his thoughts on Blu-ray, etc. It would be interesting if he "dropped by"...

 

[JParker]

Great find, James!

Thanks; there could be a whole thread on the future of movies with that interview and his innovations.

 

[ShowsOn]

But look what Warner's done for Chariots of Fire. Granted, Brainstorm is no Chariots but they have the technical ability. With Trumbull, they could have prepared a Director's edition from the 70mm elements, it's not like there was three hours of footage like Lawrence for an expensive scan. For a Blu-ray of this film not to feature the quality of the 70mm elements, and no involvement of the Director, is a deal breaker for me.
And I wonder if Warner's Blu-ray of 2001 was just a 2K scan?
And if you speak to Trumbull, does he follow this forum? What are his thoughts on Blu-ray, etc. It would be interesting if he "dropped by"...

He came to Australia to attend a film festival in the city I live in last year. I had the chance to speak to him before he presented a lecture about his life work in films.
If you have access to a uni library you may be able to get a full text download of the interview as I got it published it in a magazine. See here:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/159672384?versionId=174056845

 

[moovtune]

I finally watched my copy last night - not up to Warner's standards at all. I had to adjust the brightness level down 10 notches to counter the washed out look it had throughout. And there was an obvious audio glitch in the right channel at 40:15 into the film. Disappointing.

 

[JParker]

He came to Australia to attend a film festival in the city I live in last year. I had the chance to speak to him before he presented a lecture about his life work in films.
If you have access to a uni library you may be able to get a full text download of the interview as I got it published it in a magazine. See here:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/159672384?versionId=174056845

Thanks, but only Gale Group public library database, and it doesn't show up. Is this an online or Adobe file one can buy or only via snail mail?
http://www.shopwiki.com.au/l/The-Quest-for-Compromise
http://www.metromagazine.com.au/shop/product.asp?pID=3454&cID=1&c=21109
OK, let's see if I can buy it, it's downloadable. Thanks!

 

[JoeStemme]

Douglas Trumbull's early attempt at depicting Virtual Reality in a film is a mixed affair, but remains fascinating. Its solid cast and good production values are somewhat let down by the muddled script and inexperienced direction (this was to be Trumbull's second - and final, Directing gig).

The film is caught in odd Catch 22 - much of its technology has been both long since been surpassed (the Mylar tape & laser show!), and, in other areas, not reached yet - true emotions and sensations transmitted via VR. As expected from Trumbull, the special effects are solid if not as spectacular as his work on 2001, BLADE RUNNER and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Originally conceived as a feature film test for his high frame rate Showscan process, Trumbull had to settle for 70mm and a wider aspect ratio for it's VR scenes. There is no question that true Showscan would have made for a more impressive visual experience, even if only in limited locations.

Douglas Trumbull* is one of cinema's true visionaries, but a smooth accomplished Director he wasn't. As in SILENT RUNNING, the ideas and visuals outstrip his ability to do them full justice. Still, BRAINSTORM has more solid ideas than 99% of SF films even attempt. The film's love for Science, from the gadgets to the photos of Einstein, to the self-sacrifice of the wonderful Louise Fletcher, this is a movie that celebrates the world of knowledge. And, damn, Christopher Walken that off-the-wall even then!!?? Sadly, poor Natalie Wood looked very tired (her death during filming cast a pall over its release). Cliff Robertson is decent as the head of the experimental lab. Still, it is Fletcher who becomes the heart and literal soul of the production. Her Lillian Reynolds is an exceptional depiction of the dedicated scientist who lets no obstacle get in the way of her pursuits. It is because of Fletcher and the film's concepts that makes the film endure, whatever its flaws.


* I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture with Douglas and spent some private time with him. A lovely, kind man who still burst with passion in his later years. The next day? I got to see him introduce a 70mm print screening of 2001! Not a bad weekend. RIP

 

[ScottRE]

I watched this film for the first time in years, probably since I got the "Remastered Edition" DVD. I was transfixed the entire time. I was aware of a few dodgy performances, but neither that nor the dated technology bothered me. It was the early 80's and I watched it with that perspective (the way I watch everything). Those were fun days when these SFX filled government conspiracy techno thrillers were making the rounds. For me, I put Brainstorm up there with Blue Thunder and WarGames. What Brainstorm had over those was a beautiful vision, some touching performances and a killer James Horner score.

Even though some of the visions of the afterlife are a bit on the nose and certain choices are confusing (such as why Lillian seemed to visit Hell first), I enjoyed the relationship arc between Walken and Wood. The presentation of his "mixtape" was a beautiful scene. When he is watching the final tape at the end and he gently asks Karen to not touch it, all she can do it hold him. I'll be damned if that didn't make me misty. This was also a sci-fi film for adults.

I have a HUGE soft spot for 80's sci-fi movies, so I tend to love films even though they may not be the strongest productions ever (2010, I'm looking at you). Brainstorm was a unique film with a lot of heart and scope.

I never got to see this in the theaters. I was still just a little to young to go on my own and it probably came and went quickly. I remember seeing it on cable and buying the soundtrack. But I would love to see it on the big screen somewhere.

 

[jayembee]

Still, BRAINSTORM has more solid ideas than 99% of SF films even attempt. The film's love for Science, from the gadgets to the photos of Einstein, to the self-sacrifice of the wonderful Louise Fletcher, this is a movie that celebrates the world of knowledge. And, damn, Christopher Walken that off-the-wall even then!!?? Sadly, poor Natalie Wood looked very tired (her death during filming cast a pall over its release). Cliff Robertson is decent as the head of the experimental lab. Still, it is Fletcher who becomes the heart and literal soul of the production. Her Lillian Reynolds is an exceptional depiction of the dedicated scientist who lets no obstacle get in the way of her pursuits. It is because of Fletcher and the film's concepts that makes the film endure, whatever its flaws.

I can't disagree with any of that, but...

Even though some of the visions of the afterlife are a bit on the nose and certain choices are confusing (such as why Lillian seemed to visit Hell first), I enjoyed the relationship arc between Walken and Wood. The presentation of his "mixtape" was a beautiful scene. When he is watching the final tape at the end and he gently asks Karen to not touch it, all she can do it hold him. I'll be damned if that didn't make me misty. This was also a sci-fi film for adults.

This I agree with. To me, science fiction is at its best when it considers how an advance in technology affects the human condition, and that (as Scott calls it) "mix-tape" nails it. After all the things, good and bad, that the brainstorm technology can do, it's greatest application was to help a couple who'd lost their way find themselves again.

I have a HUGE soft spot for 80's sci-fi movies, so I tend to love films even though they may not be the strongest productions ever (2010, I'm looking at you). Brainstorm was a unique film with a lot of heart and scope.

It's a film that metaphorically suffers the death of a thousand cuts. There's just enough wrong with it to keep it from being a great film, but enough right with it that it can't be dismissed out of hand.

I never got to see this in the theaters. I was still just a little to young to go on my own and it probably came and went quickly. I remember seeing it on cable and buying the soundtrack. But I would love to see it on the big screen somewhere.

I was happy to have seen it on the big screen, at Boston's Sack Charles. On the slight downside, it was in Auditorium 1, which was the lesser -- even though still good -- screen, instead of Auditorium 2, which was the best film viewing experience in the Boston area in those days.

It's really unfortunate that home video just can't replicate the experience of seeing it in a theater. Brainstorm is my number one pick for movie that absolutely has to be seen in a theater to truly appreciate it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But I would love to see it on the big screen somewhere.

If you can make it to the Museum of the Moving Image, every summer they do a 70mm film festival and they don’t show it every single year but it’s been there at several of them over the past decade.

 

[JoshZ]

I was happy to have seen it on the big screen, at Boston's Sack Charles. On the slight downside, it was in Auditorium 1, which was the lesser -- even though still good -- screen, instead of Auditorium 2, which was the best film viewing experience in the Boston area in those days.

I only got to the Charles theater in its later years, when it was no longer the best in the area anymore, but I still had a few good experiences there. As I recall, I saw all four hours of Gettysburg there one afternoon. I believe it was even a 70mm blow-up print. I still remember the booming cannon fire reverberating through the auditorium.