DVD Review HTF REVIEW: 9 to 5 - Sexist, Egotistical, Lying, Hypocritical Bigot Edition (1 Viewer)

[Michael Osadciw]

9 to 5

SEXIST, EGOTISTICAL, LYING, HYPOCRITICAL BIGOT EDITION


Studio: 20th Century Fox
Film Year: 1980
Film Length: 110 minutes
Genre: Comedy

Aspect Ratio:

1.85:1

Colour/B&W: Colour

Audio:[*] English 2.0 Stereo
[*] English 2.0 mono
[*] Spanish 2.0 mono
[*] French 2.0 mono

Subtitles: English, Spanish
Film Rating:







Release Date: April 4, 2006.


Film Rating: :star: :star: :star: / :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

Jane Fonda (Judy Bernly), Lily Tomlin (Violet Newstead), Dolly Parton (Doralee Rhodes), Dabney Coleman (Franklin M. Hart Jr.)

Story by: Patricia Resnick
Screenplay by: Colin Higgins
Directed by: Colin Higgins


The power behind the throne.


Celebrating the film’s 25th Anniversary, 20th Century Fox has released Dolly Parton’s first film 9 to 5 in a Sexist, Egotistical, Lying, Hypocritical Bigot Edition! Wow! That was a mouthful – but probably the same mouthful that you’d love to give your boss at the work you dread going to every day.

This film is for those of you who are overworked, underpaid, unappreciated, and are pushed to the edge by an ungrateful boss that you’d love to tell him (or her) to shove it. The cast (and the eyeglasses) are killer too; featuring Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton, these three very different women who become friends in Consolidated Companies as they share their distaste for their ungrateful and sleazy boss. Throughout the film they get caught up in the rush of office politics and try to turn the tables for them.

This film is sarcasm at its best which makes it great even 25 years later (only the office technology has come a long way since…this could also be a historical film in that regard). This film will make you cringe at the realities of office work, so realistically portrayed in this film. Be careful though, the film just might make you get together with your co-workers and turn your workplace upside down stand up to your boss next time you feel you’ve been treated unfairly!


VIDEO QUALITY :star: :star: :star: / :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

The film quality of this movie is dated in appearance and exhibits muted colours in the grey office interiors. From wardrobe to furnishings, this film doesn’t use a lot of colour which could be either a staple of the time or just the inability for the film to capture the entire colour on the set. Thus, contrast is also lower but not in the sense that major details are lost or the picture appears too dim. Resolution is average and acceptable for this sort of film; it is often covered in a small layer of film grain throughout the picture. No edge enhancement is present and compression artefacts are occasionally noticed around opening credits or stationary objects on screen. The aspect ratio is 1.85:1 and the unused black area is evenly divided along the top and bottom of the screen.


AUDIO QUALITY :star: :star: / :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

Both stereo and mono versions are adequate but not good enough. First, I’ll say for you to stay away from the stereo version. Voices do not sound natural at all and actually sound more muffled in comparison to the mono version. Music is unnaturally spread wide in stereo but voices are left imaged centrally between the two speakers.

The mono version sounds more defined and natural with both music and dialogue. Sound effects with both versions are few and far between unless it is there for an obvious reason. There is a lack of “background” sound effects to fill in the quiet parts of the soundtrack.

What I find unacceptable is the lack of lip-sync in this film. Whether listening to the remade stereo version or the mono version, for the first ten minutes of the film the dialogue has a serious head start over the lip movements and not for a moment does it ever look in sync. I tried to see if this had something with the quality of the DVD or the original audio recording by looking for a sound effect to cue at the same time as a visual but was having difficulty finding a sound effect that was obviously associated with something direct on screen. At about the 10 minute mark the dialogue came more in line with the lips, but I can’t say it ever became perfect. Since I tend to look at people lips when they talk (I have no idea why and I hate it) noticing dialogue out of sync is extremely frustrating when watching films.


TACTILE FUN!! ZERO / :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
TRANSDUCER ON/OFF?: OFF

Since this is a mono film and there is no LFE, I did not attempt to direct any bass to the tactile transducer.


SPECIAL FEATURES :star: :star:

/ :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:


No features on this disc are enhanced for widescreen televisions
It is the special features that many fans of this film will be flocking to. Fox has managed to get a brand-new audio commentary in line for this film’s 25th Anniversary release on DVD. Included in this commentary is Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin, and producer Bruce Gilbert. This commentary is an absolute hoot because all three females contribute their different personalities and it makes this commentary very fun to listen to – especially if you are new to this film. Parton, as always, is making a party out of it with her voice. I tell you that girl never sounds sad! Go Dolly! Both Fonda and Tomlin contribute a wealth of information and all are the highlights of the commentary.

You can also access 10 deleted scenes that total up to about 11 minutes. They are in rough shape too.

All-new interviews with the cast were put together for this Nine @ 25 featurette, a 25 minute piece about the making of this film. Remembering Colin Higgins is a featurette dedicated to the director of this film, and is a man the cast praised very much to bring comedy and fun to the making of this motion picture.

Also on this disc is a 6-minute gag reel (very blurry picture quality), a Nine to Five karaoke feature featuring the words at the bottom of the screen being highlighted as they should be sung. Thankfully the original lyrics have been removed just as they should be. I’ve been on a karaoke kick the past few days after doing Radiohead’s “CREEP". I know that ain’t Dolly Parton, but hell karaoke is a fun thing! Give it a try!

The disc also includes a full-screen theatrical trailer. It looks like it comes from a composite video source.


IN THE END...

If you hate your job, hate your boss, and are dying to storm out of your office and head down to the local bar to get a drink, 9 to 5 will definitely be one you aught to try. Whatever you do, just don’t get tempted to bring a gun to work…because those stories don’t always have happy endings!

Michael Osadciw
April 04, 2006.

 

[Tim Glover]

Nice review. Curious for comparisons with the original dvd???

 

[Travis Brashear]

Here are my thoughts (as posted in a separate thread here) in response to the following off-site review (http://dvdmg.com/9to5se.shtml):

Well, I must disagree entirely and fervently with Colin Jacobson's review. The audio, to my ear, sounds identical to the original DVD release but where I really disagree with Colin is in terms of the video quality. The original DVD's image was much too bright. 9 TO 5 was shot (as many films of the time) with a soft focus that produced a hazy effect around anything with bright highlights--the overcooked brightness on the original disc had the effect of causing these highlighted areas to bloom improperly and kill fine details. Just compare the opening to (I believe) Chapter 3, wherein we open on a sheet of paper. On the original DVD, the white of the paper blooms so powerfully, it's very difficult to even tell if the paper features any writing at all, much less what it says. On the new DVD, it's very evident that there's writing and if one still can't make out much in terms of readability--soft focus still intentionally prevails--one can clearly make out the layout of the text, making the overall image more "authentic" in appearance. The darker, murkier image Colin is seeing is a product of the mistaken belief that the original DVD's washed out, blooming whites are the preferred quality to the image. I say this disc is a definite step up from the original and you shouldn't shed any tears for that original if you've already parted with yours. Now that I've performed my own comparison and contrast, I'll be happily sending my original on its not-so-merry way.

 

[Michael Osadciw]

Hi guys

I don't have the 2001 edition so I have no comparison. I have not read any other comparisons or reviews of this title. These were just my impressions and how I ranked it.

Mike

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Thanks for the head's up about the lip sync. That's a cardinal sin in DVD mastering, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Thanks for the review!



So, comparing to the original DVD, we're all saying that the new disc sounds the same but looks better?

dave

 

[Travis Brashear]

That's my opinion, most assuredly.

 

[Malcolm R]

Regardless of the PQ, the non-synched soundtrack is a deal breaker.

 

[MattHR]

I just spent the last half-hour comparing the two. First, I noticed no sync problem with the new disc -- and I'm very sensitive to it when it's detectable. I have had a few cases where the problem occurs on one player, but not another.

So far, I agree with most of the arguments for -- and against -- the new disc. The old disc is a bit too bright with too much contrast, while the new disc could use a little boost of contrast. The new one is warmer, but a tad too dark -- losing shadow detail. The old one is cooler, but a bit too bright -- causing halos and ringing. Most of the time, the new disc has the better picture. Somewhere in between these two lies the perfect transfer.

I also noticed a significant amount of "gate weave" on the old disc during stationary shots. It's all but gone on the new disc.

For me, the audio was a bit easier to compare. They both contain mono and stereo remixes. The stereo mix on the new disc appears to be a new one, but still very artificial sounding. Unfortunately, the mono track on the new disc is vastly inferior to the mono track on the old one. It sounds like a mono mix of the new stereo track, rather than the original mono mix. It has a very muted, muffled sound to it...in the way WSR refers to "Big Fat Mono". Background details are all but lost. During the first scene in Hart's office, it sounded as if the dialogue was all ADR, with no foley effects. When switching over to the old disc, the sound appeared to become stereo by comparison. I had to check to make sure it was still set to the mono track, because the fidelity was much more more vibrant, revealing a full spectrum not audible on the new disc. During this scene, a full range of background noise could be heard from the outer office (phones ringing, typewriters, conversations, etc.) These effects are almost completely lost in the new disc's mono mix. Any increase in volume to locate these sounds resulted in an unlistenable, distorted and harsh soundtrack.

The best situation would be to have the old disc's mono track paired with the new disc's video transfer. The stereo remixes are useless, in my opinion. They're just too phony sounding.

Overall, I'd pick the new disc. The picture is (mostly) an improvement, and the supplements are fun. It's just too bad the original mono track wasn't presented better -- and I'm not even sure it is the original mono track. It still sounds like a collapsed stereo track to my ears.

It's always a pisser when a new version doesn't completely improve upon a prior release. It makes it more difficult to decide whether to part with the old -- or even "upgrade" to the new.

 

[JohnMor]

I agree. The new sound tracks are pretty poor. And a fair amount of shadow detail is lost due to the darker picture. But overall, I'm still glad I double-dipped on this title. I loved the commentary. It was a hoot to watch the film with that foursome.

 

[Mark B]

I am, too, and I didn't notice any sync issues.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Ditto on the picture quality and sound. This is one of my favorite comedies. I am anxious to sit down and listen to the commentary, that should be great, as I love all three actresses. Thanks for the thorough review.