fryinpan1

http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?...5965&n=1&burl=

Columbia has officially announced William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice which stars Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Joseph Fiennes. The disc will be available to own from the 10th May this year, and should set you back somewhere in the region of around $26.96. The film itself will be presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen along with English and French Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks. Extras will include a commentary by actor Al Pacino and Director Michael Radford, a second commentary With Director Michael Radford and Actress Lynn Collins, a making of featurette and a web link to the Teachers' guide. English and French subtitles will also be provided.

Geofferson

Thanks for the heads-up!

ClayinCA

Now if we could only get Pacino's LOOKING FOR RICHARD on DVD in Region 1...or Branagh's HAMLET...!

Roy Batty

Outstanding! I just saw this and was thorougly impressed. Lynn Collins as Portia steals the show!

Joe Molotov

What I want to know is why did this never get a proper theatrical release? According to Box Office Mojo, it cost $30 Million to make, but it was never showing on more than 95 screens. You'd think the stars alone could have picked up a little green if it had got a wider release.

Roy Batty

IMHO, Shakespeare doesn't sell tickets. Anything but an art house showing this film would run it at a loss. Keep in mind that todays average film goer probably wants Clint Eastwood and Jim Carrey to take their mind off the world and work.

Joe Molotov

I'd buy that, but why did they spend so much money on it if they were only going to play it in art houses? A Mid-Summer Night's Dream with Michelle Pfeiffer and Calista Flockhart made $16 Million. "O" made $16 Million. Hamlet with Mel Gibson made $20 Million. Romeo and Juliet with Leonardi DiCaprio made $46 Million. It seems like the potential's there to make a little money at least. Did it do so poorly in limited release that Sony didn't want to give it a chance? It made about $2 Million, which doesn't seem too bad for a small number of screens, but it's hardly enough to make your money back.

Roy Batty

I personally have no idea why the studio would drop that kind of $$ if they knew or suspected that the film would not appeal to a general audience (which I think is true here). I'm just glad they did! I live in a relatively rural area and it is now playing in the only art house we have. Perhaps test screenings told the studio that this was the best way to recoup their costs? Even a mainstream, name actor like Pacino is, IMO, not enough of a draw to get your average viewer in the theater for a film like this, especially at $8-10$ a pop. I go to the show so infrequently anymore that getting a film like this to see is just a real treat.

Cameron

courtesy of dvd bliss