Early reviews: "Shane" and "Nashville"
08-08-00, 03:43 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the fact both are regarded as classics, I'd never seen either of these films before I got the DVDs. Although I'm not a huge fan of Westerns, "Shane" came through pretty well. Some parts of it were slow-going - the middle third, mainly - but it started and ended well and offered a generally satisfying experience.
"Nashville", on the other hand, pretty much left me cold. It probably was a pioneering piece in its day, but it seemed too scattershot and lacked enough cohesion. I respected the film for the ways in which it was different but didn't much enjoy the final result.
As far as the DVDs themselves go, "Shane" looked average. The picture was acceptably crisp and clear without too many flaws, but the colors appeared pale. Sound was decent but unspectacular pseudo-surround that effectively seemed monaural. The only substantial extra was a fairly good audio commentary; it featured too many gaps and was somewhat dry at times but provided enough worthwhile data to deserve a listen.
"Nashville" provides slightly faded colors and some concerns with shadow detail, but the image looked pretty crisp and lacked significant print flaws. The DD 5.1 remix works fairly well, especially in the way it spreads the music. Altman's audio commentary is a bit of a bore, unfortunately, as he doesn't provide a lot of details about various aspects of making the film. His video interview repeats much of the same info but is more satisfying just because it's more efficient. Actually, my favorite supplement was the movie's trailer, which does a great job of setting up the extensive roster of characters; I wish I'd watched it before I screener the film.
More detailed reviews of these DVDs are available at http://www.dvdmg.com
Colin Jacobson
"Nashville", on the other hand, pretty much left me cold. It probably was a pioneering piece in its day, but it seemed too scattershot and lacked enough cohesion. I respected the film for the ways in which it was different but didn't much enjoy the final result.
As far as the DVDs themselves go, "Shane" looked average. The picture was acceptably crisp and clear without too many flaws, but the colors appeared pale. Sound was decent but unspectacular pseudo-surround that effectively seemed monaural. The only substantial extra was a fairly good audio commentary; it featured too many gaps and was somewhat dry at times but provided enough worthwhile data to deserve a listen.
"Nashville" provides slightly faded colors and some concerns with shadow detail, but the image looked pretty crisp and lacked significant print flaws. The DD 5.1 remix works fairly well, especially in the way it spreads the music. Altman's audio commentary is a bit of a bore, unfortunately, as he doesn't provide a lot of details about various aspects of making the film. His video interview repeats much of the same info but is more satisfying just because it's more efficient. Actually, my favorite supplement was the movie's trailer, which does a great job of setting up the extensive roster of characters; I wish I'd watched it before I screener the film.
More detailed reviews of these DVDs are available at http://www.dvdmg.com
Colin Jacobson
08-08-00, 02:13 PM
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Nashville is one of my very favorite films of all time. I'm not going to criticize the reviewer for his opinion. I just want to say that Nashville has a very complex structure that cannot be totally appreciated on one viewing. I saw Nashville twice in the first three days it was out in 1975 and probably a half dozen times since then (unfortunately in full screen since that has been the only way it has been available on video until now).
I think if the reviewer were to give it at least one more viewing he would begin to see that it is much less scattershot and much more cohesive than he first thought.
As for Altman's commentary, I haven't heard it as I won't get the DVD until the August 15 release date. But I did very much enjoy his commentaries for The Player and Cookie's Fortune.
The comments about the technical aspects, particularly the DD sound are encouraging. It sounds as if Paramount did a pretty good job with a 25 year old film.
I think if the reviewer were to give it at least one more viewing he would begin to see that it is much less scattershot and much more cohesive than he first thought.
As for Altman's commentary, I haven't heard it as I won't get the DVD until the August 15 release date. But I did very much enjoy his commentaries for The Player and Cookie's Fortune.
The comments about the technical aspects, particularly the DD sound are encouraging. It sounds as if Paramount did a pretty good job with a 25 year old film.
08-08-00, 03:17 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian: Yes, "Shane" is fullscreen. I was under the impression that's how it was shot; as it was made in 1952, that's right on the bubble for the appearanced of non-1.37:1 movies. IMDB state that 1.66:1 is the "intended ratio", but I have no idea if that's correct or not; they've been wrong many times in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case here as well. Anyway, I so no signs of cropping on "Shane"; it looked appropriately framed to me.
Movielib: You may be right about "Nashville", but to be honest, I wasn't interested enough to want to watch it again. I just thought it was overly ambitious - boy, they love to trumpet that "24 major characters" line, even though it's kind of a crock. Maybe I expected too much of it, maybe I just don't like it period, but it simply didn't do much for me. I know that I'm in the minority here, however, so I think the movie's worth a look for most people...
Movielib: You may be right about "Nashville", but to be honest, I wasn't interested enough to want to watch it again. I just thought it was overly ambitious - boy, they love to trumpet that "24 major characters" line, even though it's kind of a crock. Maybe I expected too much of it, maybe I just don't like it period, but it simply didn't do much for me. I know that I'm in the minority here, however, so I think the movie's worth a look for most people...
11-20-00, 02:19 AM
#5
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by brianluvdvd:
is it true that Shane is presented Full-screen instead of Widescreen?<HR>
The Shane DVD presents the film in the original 1.37:1 aspect ratio. While it was originally shot/composed for that ratio, I believe it was sometimes masked to a wider AR when finally released theatrically to better compete with the Cinemascope pictures that were appearing.
------------------
My DVD Library
