Criterion Press Release: Red River (Dual Format) (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

That other forum has put up their review of the Criterion release of Red River. I didn't pay much attention to the review itself, but of particular interest is that they now have comparable screenshots from both versions - the UK MoC release and the new Criterion release. The one scene that is directly comparable is provided below:

UK MoC release:


US Criterion release:


To my eyes, on the plus side the US release contains more of the image and has less visible damage, but potential negatives include the fact that it seems a bit too bright, and also seems scrubbed of both grain and fine detail.

A range of other screenshots from each release can be viewed below:

UK MoC release

US Criterion release

Any thoughts?

Update: The screenshots above compare two different versions of the movie - the MoC version is the Longer version, the Criterion is the Theatrical version. For a comparison of the Longer version from both releases, see further below.

 

[JoHud]

I'm kinda surprised different transfers are being used here. Usually in this situation the MoC and Criterion releases are identical in terms of video.

Did they both do their own separate transfers? Or is MoC working off separate elements located in the UK?

I'll hold off any assumption on the quality of Criterion's blu-ray until I have it, which should be soon because I have it on pre-order. Let's hope this is not the case.

 

[revgen]

Here's some important information for those trying to compare the MOC with the Criterion using that other site's screenshots.

From the Criterion review.

1. Screencaptures #1-19 are from the Theatrical Version (Disc One).
2. Screencaptures #21-36 are from the Prerelease Version/Longer Version (Disc Two).

From the MOC review.

There are two different versions of Red River that have been shown theatrically. The shorter version, which runs at approximately 127 minutes, was apparently the preferred by director Hawks version of his film. The longer version, also known as the Prerelease Version, which was also the one MGM initially released on DVD in North America, runs at approximately 133 minutes. This longer version of the film is the one that is included on Eureka Entertainment's upcoming Blu-ray release.

The screenshot PersianImmortal uses from the Criterion disc is screenshot #19, which is from the "theatrical release" which uses a variety of different sources to recreate Hawk's original theatrical cut. The MOC is the pre-release version.

 

[Persianimmortal]

You're right, my fault for not reading their review. A set of similar screenshots from the directly comparable longer versions of the film are below:

UK MoC release:


US Criterion release:



Looks to have better contrast and detail than the theatrical version. Any thoughts on this one?

 

[FoxyMulder]

You're right, my fault for not reading their review. A set of similar screenshots from the directly comparable longer versions of the film are below:

UK MoC release:


US Criterion release:



Looks to have better contrast and detail than the theatrical version. Any thoughts on this one?

Not quite the exact same frame but i have to say i think the Criterion release seems to lose some film grain and detail, hopefully it's just that one shot. I know you said both shots above are from the longer versions of the film but are you sure. ?

 

[Persianimmortal]

According to their review, screenshots 21-36 are from the longer version. If you go to their Criterion release screenshot collection here you can see the shot I used is screenshot 21, after the prerelease version divider.

 

[FoxyMulder]

According to their review, screenshots 21-36 are from the longer version. If you go to their Criterion release screenshot collection here you can see the shot I used is screenshot 21, after the prerelease version divider.

If that is the case then i might save myself some money and just buy the MOC version, depends how the rest of the film looks, i'll wait for all the reviews to come in and the usual comparisons which will pop up before deciding.

 

[sonomatom1]

With all of the comments about Burt Lancaster, I would remind folks of his wonderful performance in "Zulu Dawn". And, IMO, Wayne absolutely proved he was an actor of the first order in "The Searchers" and "Red River". He was a very physical actor - he said so much more with his facial expressions and body language than he ever did with his dialogue. I treasure those two films.

 

[Brandon Conway]

For those wondering about packaging - the book is quite thick, so this will take up "box set" amount of shelf space.

Pics can be seen here: http://criterionforum.org/DVD-packaging/red-river/the-criterion-collection/1276

 

[JoeDoakes]

Unless the image is awful, I really have a hard time telling much from screen caps, especially in these days of blu-ray. Like in so many other instances, I'll wait to see what RAH has to say about this one.

 

[Jari K]

Since Criterion has two versions and the UK has "only" one, I would say that we have a winner.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Since Criterion has two versions and the UK has "only" one, I would say that we have a winner.

I thought the Masters of Cinema release contained both cuts of the film. ?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Then you thought erroneously.

 

[Persianimmortal]

The MoC release has only the pre-release/longer/book version. To be honest, that's the only version I'm interested in anyway, but if you want both versions the Criterion release is your only option. As I noted earlier in the thread, the reason MoC used that version is provided as follows:

It might seem curious to debate the official version of a film for viewing and study, like comparing the various versions of Shakespeare's Hamlet. While the differences are notable, the version presented here is the now more canonical Book Version, which has been better preserved and has been provided the best transfer. We recommend to viewers, however, to seek out the Voice Version as well, and make their own decision of what they prefer.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I thought the Masters of Cinema release contained both cuts of the film. ?

Nope, only the longer version. I'm buying the Criterion version too, I prefer the longer version of this film, but will check out the shorter version at sometime later on. I will definitely be comparing the two BD releases as I don't trust screen caps to tell me which version is superior in quality.

 

[Jari K]

"..but if you want both versions the Criterion release is your only option."French BD has also "both" versions. But it doesn't have those nice extras from Criterion.It has to be said that the UK version has isolated score and exclusive (I believe) interview. So if you're a super fan...

 

[Persianimmortal]

DVD Beaver chimes in now with their review of the Criterion release, and has comparable screenshots of all versions. Seems to confirm my opinion that whatever Criterion has done to clean up the movie has also resulted in a washed out look and scrubbing of some detail/grain, in both versions. I'm interested to hear RAH's opinion on this too.

 

[FoxyMulder]

If the French BD does not have forced subtitles and has the image quality of the UK disc i may buy it, this is one of my favourite films of all time so i may just end up buying all the different versions, unfortunately i do trust screencaps and it's putting me off the Criterion release.

 

[Dick]

Looks like a double dip for me as I bought the Eureka MOC release back in November. Not only one of my favorite westerns, but an all-time favorite film.

I do not necessarily attach a lot of weight to the screen grabs that are posted on DVD Beaver (or anywhere else), but it is evident to me that there is a fairly significant difference in the image quality between the MOC and Criterion, and with this particular title, I think a double-dip is almost a necessity if you love this film. The Criterion has two versions of the film and fewer visible artifacts, but it is also much brighter and somewhat DNR'd, taking away some of the fine detail. I prefer the MOC image quality with its richer blacks and contrast, and greater detail in brighter areas, in spite of a few fine scratches periodically.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I do not necessarily attach a lot of weight to the screen grabs that are posted on DVD Beaver (or anywhere else), but it is evident to me that there is a fairly significant difference in the image quality between the MOC and Criterion, and with this particular title, I think a double-dip is almost a necessity if you love this film. The Criterion has two versions of the film and fewer visible artifacts, but it is also much brighter and somewhat DNR'd, taking away some of the fine detail. I prefer the MOC image quality with its richer blacks and contrast, and greater detail in brighter areas, in spite of a few fine scratches periodically.

I prefer to make that determination actually watching the discs.