DVD Talk review of 'Enemy of the State: Special Edition'
 

I read Scott Weinberg's DVD review of Enemy of the State: Special Edition at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=21664 and...

it would have been noce if DVDTalk had someone review the DVD that knows the movie well enough to comment on the extended version of the film. I would like to know if the added footage is good or sucks.

Would have been noce, sure. Sorry to disappoint you.

I don't want you to think I am attacking the content on any other basis. The review is fine, but I just wish to know about if the added content was worthwhile.

I try to always make note of "what's new" in any extended editions, but sometimes I just can't recall and/or don't have the original DVD with which to compare the new one.

If you check my review of Con Air or Crimson Tide you'll see what I mean. But I'm a LOT more familiar with those two than I am with Enemy, so I just couldn't spot the new stuff.

Come to think of it, there's definitely some new stuff with Seth Green and Jack Black cracking wise in one of their control rooms. I know this cuz the scene made me laugh, and I'd have remembered it.

If you're a fan of the movie, I'd say it's worth the upgrade. They don't add enough stuff to ruin the pacing of the flick, so it's not likely you'll HATE the additions.

Plus the transfer's better.

When is the Crimson Tide review going to be posted?

Some time tonight.

It'd be good to make the effort.

Yeah, I truly don't want to be rude and I do appreciate the energy expended in writing any even half-worthwhile review but, really, when it comes to these extended editions, that is the chief, paramount reason 95% of us are reading it--what footage is new and does it help/hinder/not affect the original edit? If that can't be provided, my vote is to not even bother making the review...sorry...just for what it's worth...

Here's a rule of thumb: If a film is extended less than 12 minutes odds are the added footage is there so that a studio can simply re-release it as an extended edition and make more money. There are VERY few examples of extended editions which have added less than 10-12 mins of footage that have been worth re-buying it.

Also, in a film of 120 or so mins it is often EXTREMELY hard to pick out the two or three moments which differ from the theatrical version. Sometimes nearly impossible. It would REALLY help everyone if studios indicated where the added footage was (New Line did it on all The Lord of The Ring Extended Editions and it worked QUITE well there).

So while I can understand your desire for a break down of the new material, I think the studios also share here in the responsibility for making that information more well know, and I'd go as far as to say, they have the responsibility NOT to call a release an extended edition with material so imperceptible that it can't even be detected by one of our more senior writers.

What happened to my post?

Respectufully, sir, it this a defense of reviews which don't meet your readers' needs?

Quite frankly, I don't hold your opinion that less than 10 minutes of footage can't make or break a film (STAR TREK II, for an example, has less than 10 minutes of additions on DVD but they make it a vastly superior viewing experience); you may certainly hold that to be your "rule of thumb" but what makes it ours?

The real problem here is just lazy slipshod reviewing. I can't believe my post quoting Weinberg's response was deleted. He clearly doesn't care what he produces so long as he make the deadline and the review copies keep flowing over to his house.

If he can't handle being a reviewer then give the job to someone more dedicated.

The movie is eight years old - I don't know why everyone expects someone to pick out every new frame for a film - as Geoff stated, most of these "extended editions" are just a few scenes added back in, usually without significant effect on the film, so picking them out is especially difficult for films older than a few years (at least, for me). Scott did state in his review that he had viewed the original film and could not really pick out any major new scenes... I'd rather have a review of the DVD - especially considering the major selling point of this is the transfer - than no review.

Sure, it would be nice if the studios could * the chapters with new footage, but they seemed to move away from that trend as "extended editions" became more of a gimmick, imo.

Argentoholic. I think you have an axe to grind here that is more a personal attack on Scott than anything else. I removed the 2 posts as I do NOT tolerate personal attacks on this forum. Feedback, sure. But what your posting isn't feedback. I can use many words to describe Scott and none of them would ever include lazy or slipshod!

So move along and stop the personal attacks or you'll find yourself at the end of an admistrative action here on the forum.

Fair enough; that's your vote. Personally, I would prefer that reviews of DVDs that feature an altered edit from the original theatrical version/original DVD release be mandated to break down what footage is new and whether it a) improves the film (STAR TREK II), b) hurts the film (THE RING TWO) or has no qualitative effect on the film (THE PATRIOT); like it or not, many of us (in fact, I would argue most) are specifically interested in this information above all else.

I'm criticizing his writing, not him.

However, I apologize for any harm I caused the Enemy of the State:SE review.

I think that when you don't answer the main question in a review of an extended edition that everyone wants answered (Is the extended edition really worth an upgrade?) then people are going to get pissed.

I'm just glad it's finally anamorphic, everything else is disappointing but what do you expect for $12.99 in this day an age of $30+ two-disc releases?

Would it be nice? Sure, usually more information is always better. Is it always realistic in every case for an older flick? Not so much. As for your multiple choice, I'd argue that Scott made a good case for C) has no qualitative effect on the film, seeing as how his review of the extra footage could be summed up in a manner close to that - at least, from my reading of his review.

My only problem with that is that he's working from a sketchy memory of viewing the theatrical version long ago, not from a direct comparison and contrast--if he's not prepared to put in that sort of leg work (and no one is requiring him to; we realize he does reviews for others out of the kindness of his own heart), then I would prefer he forego reviews of titles with altered edits altogether and leave them to whomever might want to take this extra effort.

And if there's no one available to do this, then what would you suggest? That the disc not be covered at all?

Exactly; if I walk away with one important question answered (video/audio quality) but not another (how the re-edit affects the picture), then I'm really no better off from a purchasing perspective than I was before I read the review, now am I?

Um...yes? :hscratch:

Not to take anything away from Randy's punchline, but as a pre-emptive strike against a followup "How?", his response means that if you have two questions and one of them is answered, you are better off than you would've been without reading the review -- y'know, one answered question versus zero.

I tend to be more in the "all other things equal, reviews of extended cuts should detail the differences" camp, personally, although I'd prefer to let someone else figure out what the precise differences are.

Me too. I remember getting grilled in this very forum over my review for <i>Underworld: Extended Edition</i> a few years back---having never even <i>seen</i> the first DVD (or requesting the new one, for that matter), I couldn't really hide the fact that I wasn't the best reviewer for the job...but I wrote it up anyway. Since then, I've tried much harder to detail the differences of double-dips---and while I doubt I'd always write a blow-by-blow account of the new additions, it's always worth a mention if possible.

Long story short: I feel your pain, Scott. ;)

I thought the reviews were fine, and was just glad to have something which gave me the info I needed on a/v quality.

These films aren't high art, I don't need a shot by shot breakdown of new footage for them.

Looking forward to future reviews Scott! :)