This is actually a very valid argument. I was in Prague back in 1989 I think (a long time ago) and spoke with a guy who was involved with the marketing campaign at the time. To make a long story short they bet on the cast (Binoche/Del Lewis....) for the film to have a much larger Western appeal. This may not make much sense on this board but I also think (just as Marek did) that an all Czech cast would have not brought the attention the film consequently gathered. I am in full agreement with you though...some of the accents are rather dull!

Ciao,
Pro-B

I say that just because I've seen several Czech films, am learning the language and am used to hearing it. The Czech style of storytelling would perfectly suit this story. Nevermind that it's a Czech story (although Kundera hasn't written in Czech for decades and has distanced himself completely from it), takes place in Prague, etc. The Czenglish accents in the movie were stupid, generic "Slavic" accents. I've asked all my Czech friends and students: if a Czech movie is a story about, say, Americans, what does their Czech sound like? They said they use perfect Czech. I said that in English films with foreign characters we use accents that a speaker from that place would presumably use in English. They thought I was totally mad. I've now come to think that we are crazy for doing this.

Sadly, not many Czechs seem to know this movie.

It is not only crazy...it is plain stupid. I recently reviewed Imagining Argentina with Emma Thompson and Antonio Banderas where Emma Thompson was speaking with a Spanish accent. It just 100% destroyed the film for me. The entire film is in Spanglish and believe it or not for someone with such a strong British accent to immitate Spanglish (and I want to underline "immitate") is plain stupid. This film was such a mess I could not handle it at all.

Back to Kundera's film...I would have certainly used the Czech language to retell the story. I always thought that many in in the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia) saw this film as a Western propaganda, hence your comment that the film is not that well known by many of the younger Czechs and Slovaks. Being a Slav myself I find this to be one of the greatest films from the last 20 years. For me it meant so, so much....

Ciao,
Pro-B

Where are you from, by the way? Just curious. Nice discussion! That reminds me, I think Enemy at the Gates did it right, by having Russian characters simply speak in a formal British accent. For many of the actors, it was their accent, anyway. Of course, I think Bob Hoskins had a cheesy Slavic accent, but I can't remember. Like Amadeus: the actors using their accents. So what? We know the characters are German or Italian or whatever.

Ugh - the new Warner 2disc splits the movie up over the 2 discs and the image doesn't look any better than the Criterion.

Reminds me of one of my faves, THE BEAST (Kevin Reynolds-1988)

People who've watched the film couldnt understand why the Afghanis spoke in their native tounge, while the Ruskies-spoke perfect midwest American English!

Except for their characters names, not a single Russian accent to be heard:
"Da, Kapitan Moscovitch-ve vill execute the Kapitalist Dog at sunrise!"

I think had the whole movie had been subtitled, it would have done even poorer.

And it probably wouldnt have been made at all, had its parallels to the US and the Vietnam war not been thinly veiled behind the stories' Russian-Afghani conflict fo the early 1980s;

And believe it or not-the films story source was a stage play!

And what other movie can you see Geroge Dzundza weighing only 150 pounds?

An excellent film-too bad SONY cant remaster an extended version-instead we get the 3rd reissue of GODZILLA and the likes....

I'm not exactly upset to hear this. I've always been happy with the Criterion release, but I suspect I would have shelled out for even a slight upgrade (and in fact have put the film back on the shelf more than once in the last few months in anticipation of a possibly better version from Warner).

I may rent it from Netflix to see the little doc that was added. Otherwise the same as the Criterion? Actually, Warner doesn't do inserts, so I'm guessing it may not include the Criterion essay.

I'm actually now a bit upset that I sold off my Criterion in anticipation of this release. I had moderate expectations, but this is pretty disappointing. Oh well...

I have this pre-ordered at Columbia House. I'll keep the dvd, but it is disappointing that they have spread the movie on 2-discs and did not improve the image quality. Very rare that Warner's botches a release.

Damn. That sucks. Warner didn't have to do that......

I will stick with my Criterion Collection copy, and the MGM version I got cheap. This release will still tempt me if I ever find it on the cheap side though, and only because of the documentary feature.

Tell your Criterion versions to stay put.

I remember the Beast, and I liked it...didn't it have Adrian Pasdar or Jason Patric or somebody? Anyway, I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

I am working on the review as we speak (got the DVD this morning) and hopefully will have the review in the next 48 hours. I wanted to quickly point out however that this is one remarkably poor presentation: the transfer is mediocre at best (I have strong suspicions that it is the same master WB used in Europe), the film is split over two discs for no reason (I would have tolerated such a move if the transfer was cleaned up and visibly improved), there are tons of dust specks/dirt, and a visible contrast boosting. The only thing that I find slightly better than the Criterion release is the color scheme. Either way, a very, very poor treatment of a classic film.

My review should be up before the end of the week,

Ciao,
Pro-B

the reviews coming in from this thread =

now I guess I have to shell out more money to get the OOP Criterion version again.

Aw man, why did I have to read this thread now? Not a good way to start the day. Can't believe Warner did this, I have to give them a big thumbs down for this. They better not keep this crap up.

The review is not coming out in this thread I just wanted to give you a quick heads-up since I received the disc hours before the post above. Maybe you do not know but Geoff, the owner of the site, was at Sundance and all the releases from the entire last week just starting coming. A detailed review, with all of the technical specs will up before the end of the week.

Thank you,
Pro-B

I purchased the Criterion version of the movie, and promptly sold it without watching it when I made more than $25 on it. I will need to pick this one up.

Gary Tooze at DVD Beaver has posted his review with screencap comparisons---which don't appear nearly as dire as preliminary reports have suggested. I, too, am disappointed that Warner split the film over 2 discs, but the video presentation at least appears on a par with the 2001 Criterion transfer.

Thanks for the link.

The just about last three screenshots there give DVDbeaver a whole new meaning. lol. I love that scene in the film with that gorgeous actress.

I was planning on getting rid of my (unopened) Criterion, but now I think I'll keep it. Thanks for the reviews.

From the screenshots, the Criterion image looks the best. The colors look the most natural. A lot of pixelisation going on in shadows or color variation--Day-Lewis' left shoulder, for example, in the first screen captures.

It looks as though this version has also gone out of print. Is there hope for a re-issue with a better transfer?

I was planning on buying this (actually had it pre-ordered), but cancelled once I saw the screencaps on DVD Beaver (flawed or not, I still prefer the Criterion image). A brief doc was not enough to get me to buy it. It has indeed gone out of print, quickly and quietly.

It's a shame that this great film can't seem to stay in print for long. I'm glad I held onto my Criterion.