The back cover says "Dual Layer Format." Seems like it's a single layer disc. Is the packaging a mistake?

What makes you suspect it's really single layer?

EDIT: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=13240

I guess you might be right. Scroll down to the part about the video.

Checked in my computer - it's only a 4.06 GB disc. That's tiny. They could have upped the bit rate. They didn't even take advantage of the amount of disc space for a single layer disc and they claim it's a dual layer.

Well, it's not really true that all my favorite films get shafted on DVD... but sometimes it feels that way.

It is a single-layer disc, but I'm curious where on the back cover you see the words "Dual Layer Format"? WB usually puts the Dual Layer notice in the bottom left corner, but I'm looking at the cover right now, both my own copy and the scan of the back cover available at dvdempire, and there's no "Dual Layer Format" written anywhere. Maybe there was a misprinted batch?

It says "dual-layer format" right below the box containing the Widescreen Version disclaimer.

Can't believe in this day and age that people are still releasing single-layer discs.

It's just a rumor and I can't remember where I even read it, but supposedly these two films are going to be re-released with better treatment, perhaps by Criterion. That might just have been speculation based on what happened with DAZED & CONFUSED though.

The Criterion talk was most likely speculation based on "Slacker", but so far as I've seen it's only wishful thinking (including some on my part) and nothing more.

Exactly.

We're supposed to be trusting with the studio's and their adopting the High Definition DVD formats - yet they can't even take advantage of a single-layer DVD (nevermind double-layer).

I'm taking Before Sunset off of my DVD want list now. The film deserves much better treatment than this.

I think what a lot of you are forgetting is that Before Sunset is barely 80 minutes long, about 5 of those end credits over a black screen. It also doesn't have a lot of fast motion or complexely cluttered visuals, and the disc has no space-hogging audio tracks and few supplements. Although maximizing the bit-rate across a dual-layer disc might have been nice, to be perfectly frank the movie doesn't require it to look good by DVD standards.

You also have to realize that this movie wasn't that good either. I believe that its not only a bad movie but it ruruns the perfectness of the first film.

The DVD's video quality should be as close to how it was shown in theatres, regardless of what genre of film it is.

With the reviews that are out there, there are obviously issues with the transfer.

There's really no excuse for the DVD not being dual-layered, especially in 2004.

And you have to realize the difference between contributing to a thread and threadfarting.

Thanks ever so much for the threadcrap. It's is not only a bad post, but it "ruruns" the perfectness of the whole thread.

It has less to do with genre than with the fact that the movie is very, very short.

I've read some of those, and it seems to me another case of the review community jumping onto a bandwagon because someone at HTF or IGN started spreading a rumor that the disc looked like crap, when in fact it really doesn't.

I had no major issues with the DVD. I agree with the DVDBeaver review:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...foresunset.htm

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that, in this specific case, it's not the end of the world that some have made it out to be. The movie fits onto a single layer with an average bit-rate comparable to longer movies on dual-layer discs.