I encourage you all to try out DON'T LOOK NOW when Paramount releases it in September (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Thorne]

In Paramount's defense, the restoration is apparently a recent one. The Region 1 disc will represent the theatrical cut as it's stood for the last couple of decades. It'll also be the only way to see the film on DVD without PAL speed-up anywhere in the world. Still, the longer version was prepared with Roeg's participation, so it's obviously of some interest.

From what I've read, the French and German versions are pretty much identical as far as transfers go, but feature different cover art and additional language options. If that UK disc is the extended cut (which seems fairly likely) then the addition of the Roeg interview gives it the edge (for me at least) and it'll make a great companion to Anchor Bay's MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH S.E due next year.

 

[Kenneth_C]

I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. We are talking about, probably at most, a second or two more footage in a scene which, though incredibly done, is NOT the main point of the film. And even if Roeg had some input into re-inserting the footage (has that point even been verified?), this is hardly a case of a long-lost "Original Director's Cut". We're not talking about Dressed to Kill here, folks.
As Anthony Thorne states above
And that's good enough for me.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. We are talking about, probably at most, a second or two more footage in a scene which, though incredibly done, is NOT the main point of the film. And even if Roeg had some input into re-inserting the footage (has that point even been verified?), this is hardly a case of a long-lost "Original Director's Cut". We're not talking about Dressed to Kill here, folks.

It doesn't matter. It's the simple fact that Paramount refuses to release uncut versions. If we all run out and buy the censored versions, there will be zero incentive for Paramount to change this absurd policy. We have to vote with our pocketbooks, and I don't want Paramount to have my money on this title.

Jeff

 

[Jay Blair]

The French DVD of Don't Look Now is definitely the better transfer, also has a nicer anamorphic menu. Not a world of difference, they both are extremely high quality for a film of this age, but still get the French version over the German edition if you have a choice and don't want to wait to see what the British version looks like. Both have the Euro cut of the film.

I got the French version last fall from DVDZone2.com for about $20 shipped. I got the German version a couple months earlier from Amazon.de and it was quite a bit more expensive (I think around $30 shipped). The French edition has less noise in the dark scenes (of which there are many in this film) and is just a little sharper. The French version has a slightly more orange tint to it. I suspect the German version has the truer color transfer, but the French version can be corrected by adjusting hue a couple notches towards red on your set. Both are anamorphic widescreen. The German version however has the nicer packaging and an insert (in German) that the French version lacks.

The soundtracks for both versions are equally bad, and are not pitch corrected for the PAL speedup, which doesn't help.

A side note for Roeg fans. I also picked up the German edition of Insignificance from Amazon.de, figuring that an English language film would have an English track, but this DVD only has a German dubbed track. It also is fullscreen. At least I was able to use the attractive German packaging to hold the DVD-R backup I made from my laserdisc.

 

[Deepak Shenoy]

I have watched this movie only on pan-and-scan VHS. For a movie that is as gorgeously shot as this one, watching it in it's OAR on DVD will be like watching it again for the first time ! Can't wait for September.

 

[Dick]

Okay, those of you who insist upon the European "uncut" version of this film have your opinions and say you will not purchase the Region 1 Paramount release. Fine (although I'll bet a number of you who post that sentiment here will secretly buy the disc anyway). The rest of us will have an extraordinary movie to enjoy.

 

[Stephen A]

OK Dick,

I was going to buy the region 1 disc, but now since it's not uncut, I'll get the UK version.

 

[Ricardo C]

The rest of us will have an extraordinary movie to enjoy.

So will those of us who get the uncensored edition.
We'll wait less for it, too

 

[Dharmesh C]

Will there be a commentary track on the R1 disc?

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Okay, those of you who insist upon the European "uncut" version of this film have your opinions and say you will not purchase the Region 1 Paramount release. Fine (although I'll bet a number of you who post that sentiment here will secretly buy the disc anyway). The rest of us will have an extraordinary movie to enjoy.

First of all, you put uncut in quotes as if it's debatable. The R-rated version is cut, it's a fact.
Second, it would make me a hypocrite if I bought the R1 release while complaining about studios not releasing uncensored films. I realize that most people won't be fighting the good fight and will gladly fork over their money to Paramount for the censored version, but I just can't support this policy. Paramount did not release the R2 DVD, therefore they won't get a cent from me on this title.
Jeff

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

First of all, you put uncut in quotes as if it's debatable. The R-rated version is cut, it's a fact.

Actually, I assumed the quotes were because of uncertainty as to whether the "cut" version represented the worldwide theatrical release or a censored cut that was done only for the US release. The longer version is the preferred version if either:

• It represents Roeg's film as it was released outside of the USA, or...
• It represents the film before Roeg was forced by external pressure to make changes

If neither of these criteria were met (and I suspect the second one may in fact be true), the same logic would apply to calling the original E.T. the cut version. After all, it's not debatable, the original E.T. is cut, it's a fact.
It boils down to this. If the European cut is an actual cut of the film that Roeg made and then was prevented from releasing in 1973 (a la Eyes Wide Shut or the several Friday the 13th films that have been much discussed in other threads), then the long version is the only version I would want to own. If it is a case of revisionism ("I would have done it this way then if only..."), than I will respect Roeg's current vision, but hope that the original version remains available as well.
Regards,

 

[Dick]

I offer no argument against the fact that the MPAA sucks, and has more times than can be counted foistered severely truncated versions of films on the public in the interest of protecting us innocent moviegoers from too much flesh on screen. This was apparently the case with DON'T LOOK NOW, and, yes, the region 2 DVD represents the cut of the film before Jack Valenti and co. got hold of it. My argument is only that the missing frames are pretty inconsequential in this case - and unnoticable unless you do side-by-side, second-by-second comparisons. You won't be gaining glimpses of pubic hair or anything much more graphic in the region 2 edition -only seconds of footage that the MPAA considered too sexually intense (an extra thrust, one more heave, etc). I certainly understand the point some of you make regarding wanting the uncut edition, as I've been with this forum for years and agree with you when it comes to most films. But the differences between one cut and the other on DON'T LOOK NOW come down to a matter of FRAMES, the very minimum Roeg could get away with cutting and earn an "R" rating. Roeg himself commented back in 1974 that he did not feel he had compromised his film appreciably in order to satisfy the ratings board. But, again, I respect your right to seek out the region 2 version. Also, for die-hard fans of this film, I recommend the January 1997 issue of SIGHT AND SOUND magazine, which has an article about it, as well as DON'T LOOK NOW, a BFI MODERN CLASSICS book by Mark Sanderson which is still in print.

 

[Ken Bentley]

hey thanks sounds liek a really good movie.. i will have to check it out.. always looking for older movies on dvd..

 

[Chuck L]

I think that it also comes down to being a case of what certain studios will allow the American audiance to see that is the main problem.

While there are studios that will release Unrated films in the states, Anchor Bay and MGM come to mind, there are still those studios that continue to only release those version that are theaterical even though they know of the interest.

I do not understand why both versions of a film cannot simply be released, when they are prepped, for the folks in Region One? Of course, you can use this same argument for Pan and Scan verses Widescreen. Again, it goes to show that some studios are not using DVD to it's full potential.

Is this a way of protecting the poor American movie lover from watching what might offend the masses and make things as PC as they can be? Or is it simple laziness for not including both versions. Let people choose which one they want.

I for one can tell you that on Dressed To Kill, we have only watched the MPAA rated version to see just how bad it was cut. Every watching thereafter has been the unrated version...because that is what the director wanted. This same rule should apply whether it is of sexual or violent nature. The choice should not be made for us.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

ChuckL wrote:

It is a way of maximizing profit by selling the most "product" to the lowest common denominator while taking the least risk of incurring "unprofitable" (time- and money-draining) controversies (a.k.a., "risk management" in today's corporate parlance).
It's always about money to these huge corporations. You forget that at peril to your sanity and peace of mind.

 

[Chuck L]

Very true Rex and I agree...just seems by now, they would get the point of it all...

 

[Dick]

Regards DON'T LOOK NOW - I have to wonder if Paramount even has access to the unrated version. It was released overseas by Studio+Canal. Paramount, the U.S. distributor (not the studio that produced the film) insisted on a tiny bit of cutting for domestic release. I am thinking that this edited cut was the only one given to Paramount and which they distributed, whereas the few-seconds-longer version has remained exclusively in the U.K. Can Paramount/Mr. Blythe clear up this issue?

 

[todd s]

Can someone give me a little more of a synopsis for the movie? I don't mind spoilers. With all the new titles and tv series coming out. I just don't know if I will catch this one.

 

[Dick]

Todd, you really, REALLY don't want spoilers for this movie. It would absolutely ruin your initial viewing experience. Basically the story is of a husband and wife who are grieving the loss of their young daughter and who travel together to Venice while the husband does some church restoration. They happen upon a pair of strange women, one of whom is blind and psychic and who tells the wife that she has had contact with their deceased daughter. The husband wants them to get on with their lives and not listen to this pair of looney birds. Soon, though, the husband is seeing a strange figure dressed in red (his daughter had drowned while wearing a red mack) running through the alleyways of Venice, and the blind woman is suddenly warning the couple that they are in danger if they stay in the city. That is as much as you'll get from me. And if you have always though of Venice as a cheery and romantic locale (SUMMERTIME, A LITTLE ROMANCE, etc.) here is a film to balance the scales - this Venice is brooding and cold and incredibly creepy. Leaves quite an aftertaste.

 

[Neil_Duffy]

Good summary of the film that, without giving anything away...

Anyone who hasn't seen this film, I feel genuine sorrow for. It is a masterpiece, and I do not use that word lightly.

Now, what I'd love to know is - Does Paramount have any intention to put any supplemental features on this disc?