FilmFanSea

Don Houston's reviews for Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali and Aparajito are an abomination. The three films that make up the "Apu Trilogy" (along with World of Apu) are among the most beautiful and moving in all of cinema.

Since it appears he cannot muster a drop of empathy for those with circumstances different from his, I suggest that Don stick to reviewing the adult titles he's obviously fond of, and leave these kinds of releases to the wonderful Glenn Erickson (DVD Savant).

I look forward to reading DVD Talk's reviews every weekday, but these reviews give the whole site a black eye.

mrobison

I agree that the reviews weren't very well done. For example, his criticizing "overweight" critics who like the movie. Could he mean Roger Ebert, who picked the films as among his "Great Movies"? And he seemed to read a lot of politics into the films, ranting against socialism as a dead end. Having just watched all three films this weekend, I didn't catch any hint of a socialist agenda. These people are poor but there wasn't really any comment on class struggle, and the government was never set up as a savior (nor was it even mentioned).

The movies are dated, and most people aren't going to watch them unless forced to in a film class. And, frankly, most people aren't going to enjoy the movies. So Don Houston probably did many DVD Talk visitors a favor by steering them away from these discs.

Me, I found the movies to be a wonderful peek into East Indian life in the 1950s. There were many great faces in the trilogy and the characters have stayed with me. The writer/director didn't have a feel for story arc but I looked at the films as "slice of life" pictorials, not plot-driven, and in that sense, they worked just fine.

-- Mark

johnsusq

Don Huston should be thrown of the DVD Talk staff for such a horrible review. I have only been seriously watching films for about 2 years now, and I have never been to film school, but I still rate watching this trilogy as one of my greatest experiences with the medium. They are pure, honest, beautiful and moving portraits, with many of life's universal truths on display.

I guess if you have been weaned on a steady diet of porno films, and only have patience for a few minutes of filler dialog before you see some "action", then I guess you can listen to Don's review. To all others, Roger Ebert and FilmFanSea got it right.

Houstondon

By the numbers:
1) Empathy: The characters were completely unsympathetic and their lot in life was the result of their own doing for the most part. I don't feel angst for people that put themselves in harm's way.

2) Glenn: I like Glenn and a number of his reviews (and have nothing bad to say about him). Each reviewer has their own style though and I'm sure he'd be willing to review a copy you give him.

3) Porn: I like a lot of types of movies including adult. Locking a reviewer into a genre in hopes of achieving an outcome (i.e.: praising a type of movie) is a lot like a movie company insisting on only favorable reviews. It smacks of selling out (and that's not going to happen here).

4) Abominations: It would be deceitful for me to lie about the movies and suggest they were as good for me as they were for you. I stand by my basic premise that most people will not appreciate them.

5) Political subtext: If you have watched the movies in question and didn't observe the blatant political messages, you missed a large part of what went on. There were references to socio-economic class warfare as well but I admit that rose colored glasses make it difficult to view a movie independently. No matter how much the director wanted us to believe it, there is no nobility in being poor (in and of itself).

I wonder why each of you read the reviews in question since you already had a preconcieved notion of what I was "supposed" to say. Was it upsetting that I didn't validate your beliefs? There has been a fair amount of criticism by folks who read the reviews that think we'll (collectively) praise anything high brow and dump on movies that most people enjoy. These two movies were, for the most part, boring as heck. If your idea of a good movie is one that requires an infinite amount of analysis, study, and work, I can see where Pather might appeal to you. Keep in mind that such movies will exclude over 99% of the public, including myself.

I picked the movies because I had heard the wonderful things about them years ago. They did not live up to the hype. Since posting the reviews, I've received several emails on both sides-including one that told me how some sites took down negative reviews for the taped version a while back. I've offered everyone who wrote me to discuss the movies in greater detail but not one has replied back. I may decide to edit out a comment or two in the future (and I wasn't referring to Ebert, not having read his review until you mentioned it) but calls for dismissal because you disagree with a review strike me as hostile to open, honest reviews. If you want shill reviews, I can direct you to a number of other websites (where the worst rating a movie ever gets is "recommended") but how valauble are such sites?

Anyway, I'm off my soapbox for now. Thanks for providing constructive criticism in an open forum.

FilmFanSea

Don:

Since when is poverty de facto evidence of a socialist agenda and class warfare? Those emphases may exist in your head (for all I know, you may find a socialist subtext in a great many neutral works of art), but they are certainly not on the screen.

I cannot imagine a more sympathetic character than that of Apu. He is a boy with great imagination; he is suffused with curiosity about the world outside his village; he possesses a hopeful outlook in spite of his circumstances. [And, in an act that must surely endear him to you, he transcends his poverty, learns to read, & "pulls himself by his bootstraps" without once resorting to food stamps.] I guess in your mind the character of his sister is flawed because she is prideful (she covets her friend's possessions)? And the mother doesn't win your grudging respect even though she manages to keep her family together with an absent husband, an aged "auntie" she despises, backbreaking poverty, illness, and the ravages of the elements? Do characters have to be "perfect" in order for you to find them sympathetic? If so, I can't imagine you like many movies.

You accuse me of having a preconceived notion of what your review "should be like". I would accuse you of approaching these films as if you were settling a score. You had heard of their great reputation, & you were bound & determined to prove all those eggheaded critics wrong. You struck a blow for Joe Sixpack. Hooray!

You take a great deal of pride in degrading these small masterpieces, made on a shoestring budget, in a country without a great film tradition to that point. You seem very proud of yourself, Don. My problem is this: a negative review from you won't have any impact on whether a person buys The Matrix: Reloaded or the Indiana Jones box set. But you may well have turned off a great many curious people for whom these films will now be "tainted".

It GALLS me that you give a lower "star rating" to these releases than you did to this review (modesty prevents me from typing its name). This insults the memory of the great Satyajit Ray, and serves to undermine any critical authority you might have.

Houstondon

Film (since you didn't provide a real name),
1) The poverty angle is often subtle in the movie but also bashes you over the head at times. If you're too busy looking at the (not) pretty pictures, you may miss the messages. Then there's the way you (and a few others) feel the need to focus on my lack of empathy towards the poor (who became such by their own actions). You can prop up the poor all you like but it doesn't mean they'd believe it either. (If you'd like, we can disect the movie, line by line and scare away a lot more people too-it's certainly worse than my review mentions if you look too closely).

2) Apu was not the lead of the first movie, Durga was. I did praise his character in the second movie, did I not? I find sympathy for a great many characters that aren't perfect but not those that are pushed down my throat as sanctimonious as these were.

3) I had no score to settle. While it might be interesting to take a contrary position on movies I review, I'm less concerned than most about what the "pack" thinks than you are. Once I finished the review, I checked out a few resources thinking maybe my impression of them was wrong but all they did was solidify my take on the two. I didn't make wholesale changes to the reviews though. As far as your "Joe Sixpack" comment, I think it's about time someone stood up for the vast majority of people out there that aren't self-professed "film experts" or "professional critics". Even Mark pointed out I did most people a favor with my review (and he was on your side here).

4) It's not about pride or I wouldn't have said things like: "visuals of the direction were very interesting", "The movie has historical significance and is therefore something movie buffs should consider", and "This movie showed a good amount of growth on the director’s part in terms of story telling and technique". The two DVDs have a great many technical flaws (which I pointed out were a separate matter from the content), the subject matter is dated, the acting quite bad (on Pather in pparticular), and all the "let's lynch the messenger" talk isn't going to change that.

5) Many adults enjoy watching adult movies. To them, it's an enjoyable experience that need not be marred by religious zealots, uptight people with chips on their shoulders, or people who equate credibility of one genre review with another. A lot of people think anime is for kids too yet fail to realize how well made some of it is. In short, if you're browsing the aisles looking for a movie to rent/buy, do you criticize the quality of the drama because you went to the wrong aisle? Do you apply the standards of a Hollywood drama to the average porno? I would hope not which was why I went out of my way to explain some of the reasons for the horrible print of the two movies in question.

Last thing, if you're going to put a link to a porn movie in the discussion, please label it as such. While I'm not judgemental about viewing tastes, it's not fair to people who may be offended by such a link (and I believe it's against the forum rules). I'm curious as to why you think someone can't enjoy porn and mainstream movies too (I was raised in the Boston area and a great many University professors and professionals rented both types of movies).

Sorry if my review bothered you but I was being honest. Even those who love foreign films in general will not appreciate all films (I'm currently enjoying several Andrzej Wajda films from Vanguard) in the genre. Why don't we all be adults about it andagree to disagree on these two films?

Hokeyboy

Not that Don needs me to step in and defend him, but this comment struck me as interesting. For me, "Star ratings" are subjective within the context of the review. To wit: as movie ratings, I gave *** out of ***** to both I Am Curious... and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The former is a fascinating if generally pointless polemic sculpture, while the latter is an absolutely endearing abomination of nature. As "films", Curious is obviously the superious, a more textured and esoteric work. As "movies", Pepper's is infinitely more entertaining (and embarassing.)

So yes, if "Cum Dumpsters" succeeds at what it set it out to be, I can see a reviewer giving it a higher rating than some "renown classic" that turns out to be all noise and no signal.

To each their own. Personally, I adore the Apu trilogy but I can see how others could be turned off by it. Wanna empty a room quickly? Put on 8 1/2 and watch the Joe Sixpacks clear the decks. That's the nature of the beast. There will be plenty of gushing reviews for the trilogy elsewhere (if only for the movie, not the quality of the discs.)

mrobison

As a critic in my day job -- and one who's reviewing the Apu trilogy this week in a daily newspaper -- I've got to come to Don's defense, even though I disagree with his review of the films. The films are ARE dated, the acting IS weak in parts, and the writing ISN'T sparkling. There are some movies that aren't all that don't connect on first viewing with modern audiences (I'd rank "Citizen Kane" in this category) but they will resonate over time. The Apu trilogy probably can't even make this claim because the films are so rudimentary in technique and storytelling. I'll probably watch them a couple of more times over the next century, but not with the expectation of getting more out of them. They're simply a charming slice-of-life peek into rural life in 1950s India with lots of memorable faces.

On the other hand, I think Don is way off base saying that the director intended to show the nobility of the poor -- a style/belief that doesn't have to have anything to do with socialism anyway.

As for liking some porn movies and not liking Apu, that's just absurd to make anything out of that. It reminds me of someone criticizing me purely for giving a negative review to George Strait and a positive review to Led Zeppelin and saying that I'm not qualified to review Strait if I like Zeppelin. Such arguments just make your case look bad.

One last thing. I once gave a horrendous review to a Tony Bennett concert. He was off-key and out of sync with the band. A number of irate fans said they weren't applauding because Bennett was good but in thanks for Bennett giving them many years of wonderful music. Frankly, I did the same thing with a Johnny Cash review. He was struggling but he did it gamely and I have more affinity to Cash's music than Bennett's. So I cut him some slack in my review. I think that might be what's happening here. Don isn't naturally sympathetic to the director's body of work and frankly doesn't care how influential these movies were on the course of Indian movies or how many obstacles were overcome in the trilogy's making. He wanted to be entertained and wasn't. And if he was more entertained by Cum Dumpsters #3, then so be it. I happen to love Indian culture and their clothes and rituals so the movies meant more to me, thus I was willing to cut the DVDs more slack. But liking something purely based on its historical importance is lame -- as if you care more about being right intellectually than learning or being entertained.

Reviews are opinions. If everybody just regurgitated what the common wisdom was and didn't give their own slant on things, then what's the point of reviews anyway. You don't call for somebody's dismissal. You say you disagree and you make a case for your opinion. If you're persuasive, maybe Don will rethink things. But if you say he's a scumbag who deserves to rot in hell, then you're just confirming his opinion that the trilogy's reputation is undeserved.

Eeyore

i just read the Pather Panchali review, and came to this forum to see if anyone else had any thoughts on it. i haven't seen the dvd, but i've seen the film on VHS and on the big screen about a year ago. i looked it up on dvdtalk to see what the dvd was like... and there's really no useful information in the review other than insults to anyone who likes the movie.

i used to rely primarily on DVDTalk for DVD reviews but keep finding many of them way off base--especially in the so-called "depressing foreign film" category (the Dekalog comes to mind). if someone makes me review "good burger" it might not be my favorite film, but i'll review it for what it is... make it clear that i generally abhor movies based on nickelodeon characters that take place in fast food restaurants, but try to give fans of that genre some iota of useful information to help guide their purchasing/renting decisions.

reviews are subjective, sure. this type of review, however, really is a disservice and should be seen as an embarassment to DVDTalk.

Heliosphann

Well I'm glad there was already a post addressing this... Tragedy dare I say?

I could go on and on about what I really thought about this review, but I won't as it's all pretty much been said already. Here's a few nuggets of info about what other's though of Pather Panchali:

Pather Panchali came in tied at #22 on the 2002 Sight and Sound Critics film list of all time.

Then there's Roger Ebert's lising of the Apu Trilogy on his THE GREAT MOVIES page. (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/apu.html)

johnsusq

Of course all reviews are subjective. There really isn't a such a thing as true objectivity. But this is a bad review not simply because Don did not like the films. It really seemed like he was taking an overly abrasive tone, and was letting his emotions get the best of him:

"Every once in awhile I’ll stumble across some movie held to be a cultural treasure of a foreign land and proceed to apply my usual standard of “what does everyone see in this piece of crud” standard to it."

Every good reviewer has a "usual standard" right? Not to mention him appending to Satyajit Ray what I took to be a very disrespectful and sarcastic "R.I.P."

And to accuse professional critics of not actually watching the films on their own, and simply summarizing what they’ve heard second hand is just ridiculous. Ebert does happen to watch EVERY movie again before writing an essay for his great movies column. He even remarked in his "Answer Man" column that "High Noon" did not hold up as well as he remembered it, and that it was not as good as other critics have claimed it to be, so he has yet to add it to the list. It seems that Don not only did not like the film, but is also trying to irritate anyone who may have had the audacity to enjoy these films.

Houstondon

John, for the record, I never knowingly show disrespect for the dead. I've lost a whole lot of family members in the last few years and the RIP was intended in a much nicer way than you took it. That doesn't mean I'm going to overlook the flaws of the movie-made on a low budget, nearly 50 years ago, with apparently no surviving print of decent quality, in India, by a brand new director and crew, on a part time basis.

I never said anything about Ebert in my review although I suppose if y'all think of him as fat and overpaid, that reflects more on you than it does on me. To continue villifying me for things I simply did not say is at least as bad as the comparison between genres that have nothing to do with one another.

My accusation about professional critics was mostly because far too many of them said EXACTLY the same things, often failing to even change the wording, which sure seems suspicious to this "reviewer". As far as my opening statement goes, that is as much a reason why someone interested in the movie would want to check it out as anything anyone else has said about the movie (think about it: if "everyone" but the reviewer likes the movie, doesn't that say something about the whole matter? Some things have gone over your heads...)

Helio: I reiterate: a thousand screaming voices in favor of a bad idea doesn't make the idea any better.

Thanks Matt and Mark (I appreciate that you have at least addressed something specific about why you don't like the review or simply disagree with a point. I updated the review of Pather to address a few comments and may work on it some more in the future (I offered my copies to another reviewer but he hasn't replied yet) but the lynch mob will never be happy with anything less than a glowing review (which isn't going to happen).

johnsusq

Just for the record, I did not bring up Ebert assuming that he was the fat and overpaid critic that you mention. I brought him up as an example of a professional critic that actually watched and enjoyed these films.

siegfried

All review really need to be taken with a grain of salt.
If there is a movie I know I love, I don't even bother to read the review, I'm only looking to see how the video and sound quality are. I know I want these films on DVD, but the quality is so poor it's a joke. We should all be writing nasty letters to Columbia/Tri Star and leave Don alone, even though I do not share his opinion.

msmackle

I think most of the complaints about the review are somewhat misguided, so I thought I would insert my two cents (my first post on the site).

A number of people have complained about the reviewer in question reviewing adult films positively. Personally, I dislike adult films, but whatever, a difference of opinions, nothing more. People have complained about his prejudice towards "artsy" films, again, a difference of opinions, nothing more. Personally, if I see a review for an adult film, on the website, I scroll on, nothing to see here; again, a difference of opinions.

I find the process of matching reviewers to my tastes quite involved. For example, I like Ebert's writing, but I know from experience that our tastes differ enough that my reading his reviews involves a filter, I respect his writing and opinion and note my own responses. Conversely, I know a number of reviewers whose taste match mine closely, but who are almost unreadable; again, a filter is involved, I translate their responses to my own. Everything is taken in the context in which it was intended.

The intention with this review? He didn't like the movie. Fine, whatever. But given the noted objections that people have had, is this person the most appropriate reviewer the website could find for this particular film? Anyone else? Anyone? Personally, the Apu Trilogy has been on my "must-see" list for the past decade, my interest in this film even pre-dating my current level of interest in movies. How is this particular release? This review tells me nothing: my response is instead that my taste differs entirely from that of the reviewer, which is new information for me, but not useful information and certainly not the information I had set out to find by reading the review. For example, the review states that this film is 1.33:1: is this the original aspect ratio? (The review doesn't say.) The review states that there are print scratches: has the film been remastered? (The review doesn't say definitively.) Instead, I am left with comments about the quality of the appearance of the film that are largely discoloured by my inability to tell what is the print and what is the reviewer. A difference of opinion, but not where opinion should be relevant.

The reviewers previous responses stated that these films will not be of interest to most people. Probably true, but (in my opinion) completely irrelevant. Most movies are not of interest to most people, and thus the lack of interest or name recognition will act as a natural filter as they will likely not read the review; one man's response to adult film is another's to "artsy" fare. But for those for whom the film is of interest, this statement only serves to write off their context entirely; if you WANT to see this movie, then you are wrong, regardless of the print quality. Personally, my response is less anger at the specific review than disbelief at the choice of reviewer and disappointment that I still have no useful information about this particular release of this film.

But whatever, a difference of opinion, I'm sure...

johnsusq

To msmackle:

For a reliable review of the films and these editions of them head over to www.dvdbeaver.com then click "What's New" and scroll down to the reviews. Gary Tooze, the man who runs the site, is always my first choice for DVD reviews.

Personally, I was disspointed, but not as dissapointed with the image quality as Gary (they are not restored by the way), but I was not expecting as much as he was either. These editions are by no means definitive though, and in the event of a restored edition I would not hesitate to upgrage these.

Matt Langdon

It should be noted that The Simpson's character 'Apu' is named after the fabulous Apu trilogy.
(No kidding).
That alone makes it worth checking out.

jough

Actually, I thought the DVD Talk review was too kind to the picture and sound quality on these. There's much "ghosting" and other artifacts, the image is very blurry - it looks like an NTSC conversion of a PAL transfer.

Very disappointing. Not only did CTS mess up in the quality department, but no extras, no trilogy boxed set, and a very high price for each of these.

Just terrible.

I love these films but can't justify buying these discs after having seen them.

jay antani

I just discoverd your site, and, if the guy who wrote the review of "Pather Panchali" is any indication, I will never visit this website again.

I've never really witnessed such totally outrageous ignorance, in all my years reading and writing film criticism. Who is this kid? He writes like he's winging off a spelling assignment in fifth grade! His knowledge of both Ray's cinema, Indian popular cinema (of which Ray is adamently not a part), and his general incompetence as a film critic are glaringly obvious from the first sentence to the last.

Okay, for those of you who have never watched a Ray movie, realize that you're not walking into Hollywood paint-by-numbers, plot-driven schlock. His movies have a very unique rhythm, style and voice. Don seems completely lost at sea in his review, struggling to put Ray's style and storytelling into context but lacking the tools to do so.

I don't even know where to begin. Reading Don's review filled me with rage, pity and a feeling of hopelessness.

Don, go out, buy a book of great poetry, learn it, absorb it, live it (Whitman, Pablo Neruda and Rabindranath Tagore, particularly, who Ray was a lifelong fan of). It may cut into your porn viewing, but it might help you to appreciate, to contextualize the movies you seem obviously incapable of doing right now.

Frankly, if there is any abomination done here, it wasn't at the hands of ignoramuses like Don What's-his-name (America is full fo them, after all, and they're proliferating like fecal worms in our collective online press), it's those cheapskate *******s at Sony Pictures for failing to put out DVDs worthy of the stature of these tremendous films.

Don, for your information, Ray's cinema of the 1950s does not reflect the dominant sensiblities of mainstream Indian cinema at the time (they were mostly polished melodramas by Raj Kapoor or Guru Dutt). Claiming that it does, as you do in the last sentence of your "Panchali" review, is laughable. Next thing you know, people will say you're a moron.

Wow, Don, you need to start from scratch. Understand what you're talking about. Then figure out if writing about movies is really your calling.

Jay Antani
Los Angeles

Houstondon

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=8029
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=8030

Ray, since you didn't have the courtesy to rant at me via email, I figured I'd just make a couple of comments here.

1) That you don't know where to begin in your personal attack is indicative of your entire mindset. You loved the movie unconditionally and I can respect that, even while I disagree with you. I suppose I should point out that if I could invoke such an EMOTIONAL response in you with a simple movie review, I'm either far more talented than either of us seem to believe or you're upset because you know I'm right.

2) Movie reviews are opinions. I expressed mine in a public manner but that doesn't make it a definitive look at the movies in question, nor was that my goal. I gave an overview of the movies, some detail about how poorly they looked and sounded, and a few observations. If I didn't watch the movies with rose-colored glasses as "poetry", so be it. The reviews, however limited in your mind, were an honest look at the two movies in question. I offered my copies to several others but no one wanted to bother with them. I like a lot of independent, foreign, and low budget movies so it's not like I'm known for cheerleading the latest Hollywood blockbuster either.

3) The best source material for the films was lost in a fire. Sony, a business, had to weigh the tremendous expense of trying to restore them with what they had against the probability of recouping their investment. I agree that if they weren't going to properly restore the movie, they should've left it alone to languish in their vaults. They did not do so however and whether you appreciate my attempts at levity in the reviews or not, the technical aspect of the reviews were probably, as "jough" put it, "too kind".

That said, thanks for your input, even though it amounted to a personal attack. If one review out of 8,000+ is enough to cause you to never come back, nothing I say will change your mind.

jay antani

Hi Don,

When Sony came out with restored prints of something like eight or nine Ray titles in the mid-90s, they looked pretty decent (from what I recall). From what I understand, they used those same prints to make their DVD transfers and never bothered to digitally clean them up.

This does a huge disservice not just to Ray but to his fans. And, believe me, there are a lot of them (not just a small handful of movie geeks). So recouping their investment should never have been a concern. If they'd done a proper job, I know a lot of people who would've run out and grabbed copies (including me). A couple of years back, we had a huge Ray retrospective at the L.A. art museum, and, night after night, the place was packed. His movies really do engage and enliven one's faith in the medium. He hits with something so different, that, if you're not paying attention, it kind of broadsides you. In any case, the movies have a huge following, so concerns about recouping were just b.s.

And what's with no boxed set and NO EXTRAS?! They could've done interviews with the stars of "The World of Apu" as well as with the cinematographer. But we got zilch. Nothing. I understand that a Sony home video producer wanted to include these extras (he had a $15,000 budget drawn up), but management wanted to save money! What a shame. I wish rights to these movies were picked up by Criterion who could have done a really amazing job! Oh, well. Maybe in the future. The rights to a lot of Ray's subsequent output are still negotiable, so maybe Criterion will jump at the chance.

Without a context to really approach the "Apu" films, I can maybe see why it'd tough to sit through them. To quickly answer your points, my personal outrage at your review only stemmed from the fact that you very arrogantly and bitterly scoffed at it. Hating a movie is no problem, but doing so from a place of pure ignorance isn't fair to the filmmaker. So I, along with quite a few others it looks like, wanted to chime in.

Then again, who cares? Movie criticism is subjective, but I would hope that when one is put in the responsible position of reviewing a movie (especially one that does not have the benefit of marketing muscle like the latest "Matrix" or "LOTR" flick), that the reviewer is receptive to its demands. Anyway, you might still like "The World of Apu." It's pretty brilliantly acted and perhaps the most rewarding of the three.

Later,
Jay

dvdisoil

I managed to see it for the first time over the weekend and i have to say i was blown over by it. i skipped the R1 release and went for R2 (Artificial -eye) release. its probably the best version of these films available on DVD.

generally i like Don's reviews, maybe this is one of those movies where he did not hit it properly Or perhaps its one of those movies needing two different reviewers to give a balance in opinion.

like others have said, these are important films. Ray himself say’s in his interview ( R2 release) that his films borrow a lot from Italian Neo-relealistic films ( Bicycle thief, Umberto D etc ...) . what he shows in his films are realistic Indian villages, real ‘poor’ people and real life in India just after independence. I felt like these films take-off where the film Gandhi left us, showing western world Indian villages after independence.

i read ur review on Bombay talkies and it was good and fairly accurate. Which made me think perhaps u might want to revisit these films maybe a second viewing will “correct” it.

But again that’s just my opinion. That said, I would continue to read ur reviews and I just hope its this time that u missed your mark !

Grimfarrow

Don also missed the mark with his horrid review of "Maelstrom". Frankly, he should just leave the foreign film reviews to someone else, because he is not the right person for them.

Houstondon

Jay,
I'm always of the mind that it's better a company sit on a movie than give it a shoddy release. Sony's release of the Trilogy could've included a lot of extras (I'm sure there'd be a dozen critics or film historians bucking to do a commentary if asked) but they didn't. I researched the matter about the print with the help of a fellow reviewer and it seems the best material to use was indeed lost to a fire. Even so, I'm still of the belief that the return on investment required by Sony for such releases is prohibitive for films that are, like it or not, never going to sell like even a Roger Corman film. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just the way it is. If Criterion were to get their hands on it, I'm sure they'd have made it look good enough that the poetry aspects of the picture were more readily observable, but that hasn't happened yet. Last comment on the numbers game employed by mega-corporations: please remember that a large turnout at an arthouse theatre in a major city (Houston has several too) is not going to be representative of the demand for a movie on DVD. As others have said, even the best movies made have detractors and may not have worked for everyone. The best way for fans of the movie to do right by Ray's films would be to petition Sony to fix it and release it as a collector's edition or some such. I promise I won't review it if that'll help motivate y'all.

Houstondon

Thanks for the kind words. I watched it again right after but may need to look at it again next year. That's the trouble with obscure titles (whether or not they are looked up to by the masses of artfilm lovers is not really what makes them less obscure either), it's very easy for people to disagree on the relative merits of the film.

As I said previously, no one I conversed with was interested in reviewing them, probably in part due to the fact that the picture and sound were so off. Life's too short to review substandard (I'm speaking towards the technical issues more than the content at this point) movies.

In any case, if you have a copy of the R2 version, why don't you click on the link to my reviews and add in your own review of those versions? That way, people would know to look for the R2 version and have a better idea of what's available on DVD at this time. Thanks again!