I, however, remember it rather well, if only because I recall being somewhat shocked (and titillated) by it's explicitness. Bush, clearly visible. At least in my theater.

Same here.

I was just joking about the macroblocking/pass comment.

There's a screencap up on blu-ray dot com in the MD thread with the image enhanced, and the blurring has either been removed or it's been redone so as to be more subtle. There's a tiny dot of light visible between her legs that probably wouldn't have been visible in the original blurred scene.

To be perfectly honest, if that's all that was visible to begin with, I don't understand why it was even censored to begin with. All you can really see is a diffused dark area in her "bikini" area that might be some hair or might be a shadow.

Josh has spent a lot, I mean A LOT, of time staring at this chick's bush. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

It would be freaking hilarious if someone did try to hold you responsible!

I can't see a goddamn thing in the un-boosted shots.

Exactly. This whole "censorship" controversy has always been much ado about nothing.

What a bunch of mouth breathers.

that is so dark she might as well have George W in a scissorlock.

Far too late.

Anyway, sad to read about the slight issue with the video on this one. So this Studio Canal disc... better video and extras than the Criterion everybody waited so long for?

as ironic and unfortunate as it sounds, I (as a mod here) can't have you guys posting the full frontal shots - sorry.

Where are you reading this?

probably the hysteria filled comments in the thread at BR.com or caps-a-holic.

You know the usual places where screencaps are the be all and end all of everything and where people spout their expertise from their living room where the sharpness on their tv is set to 50 and colors to vivid.

Or the review posted at this very site that cites multiple instances of compression artifacts. Not the kind of inaccurate screen cap wolf calling that happens at other sites, but certainly something that is overlooked by some reviewers looking to give a 5 before they even pop in the disc.

If those instances exist it's nothing major, but certainly not what it could have been either.

You mean this review, where Tyler gives the disc 4.5 stars for video and 5 stars for extras?

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/69333/mulholland-dr/

That's what you read and came to the conclusion that the Criterion disc had lousy video and extras? Huh.

My own review of the disc is completed but hasn't been published yet. I'm actually harder on it than Tyler, and only rated the video 3.5 stars. The encoding quality is problematic. However, I don't think it's something that should prevent anyone from buying the disc.

I don't know where you're getting this notion that the Studio Canal disc had better video and extras. The video comes out about even. The Criterion is sharper and better detailed with slightly more vivid colors, but it's also noisier. The Studio Canal handles the grain better, but is softer. Overall, the differences between them are small and only stand out in screencaps, hardly at all during playback.

The extras on both copies are fairly insubstantial, but that's mostly because Lynch forbids discussion of what his films mean. Criterion's interviews are mostly a fawning love-fest where everyone gushes about how great it was to work with everyone else. There's little to no real substance to them.

Studio Canal's extras are mostly EPK fluff, plus a couple of featurettes where French critics attempt to analyze and explain the movie's story by pointing out things that should have been perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention.

I was not impressed by the supplements on either disc.

The Studio Canal disc is locked to Region B. The Criterion disc is locked to Region A. This is an instance where consumers in either territory can buy their local edition and not feel any burning need to import from elsewhere.

Vagina blurring aside, anyone know what this means?

An Angel at My Table

This pretty much sums it up. I've got both discs.
If you've got a region-switching player and you're a big enough fan, then both copies will suffice. I'd give the edge to the Criterion solely because it's a new 4K master and the extras are more 'fresh' than what's on the SC disc, plus it's got the deleted scene and "on the set" stuff that I found interesting, if a little too light.

If you're region-A only, the Criterion is a no-brainer, and it's the best we're going to get (at least until CC start doing 4K Blu-ray, as there's no way Universal is going to bother releasing this one ever again on their own.)

If only there was a 'ding' it could've been It's a Wonderful Life.

"Every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings."

Thanks for this. That's pretty much what I was expecting from a dispassionate review once I read the mouth breathers touting the Criterion as 'miles above', and 'worlds better' than the StudioCanal. I figured they were either CC fanboys or Region A locked.

We've got bush!

Please point out where I used the word lousy. In fact I went out of my way to include this statement... "If those instances exist it's nothing major, but certainly not what it could have been either." Did you just ignore that since it would keep you from taking a shot?

That statement was a question. Hence the question mark. Another part of my posts I guess you chose to ignore.

Is it possible for you to reply to somebody without being a dick?

There's an expression that couldn't have existed before the Internet...

I was able to give the new disc a spin this week. It is a shame about the compression issues. It's crazy to me that Criterion has seemingly allowed encoding technology to pass them by. It's doubly frustrating because this new master looks great otherwise. It's a noticeable jump from the Studio Canal in my opinion. I will say that on my 50" display, the compression didn't really bother me too much. I could see it if I was looking for it, but in motion the transfer was generally pleasing to me. I would imagine that on larger displays it would be much more problematic.

I haven't watched all of the extras yet, but I found what I did watch to be enjoyable. I thought the look into Lynch's casting process was interesting, even if it's probably old news to some. I also really enjoyed Justin Theroux's comments. His story about the Cowboy was fun. I did wish that there was a little more regarding the production history of the tv pilot. I think we all know the basics, but I would've been interested to here some more specific details about the intentions of the show had it been picked up and maybe some of Lynch's thoughts on working with ABC again after the demise of Twin Peaks.

Overall I can see why this release might be slightly disappointing to some. I am quite happy with it even if I acknowledge that it could have been better. Maybe it's not a huge upgrade if you already have the Studio Canal, and you might also think twice if you're running a large projection set up, but otherwise I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid the Criterion.

What does the internet have to do with blurred vaginas?

Only Angels Have Wings?

Seems like a strange choice considering the TCM Vault release just came out last year. In fact I have it sitting on my shelf with the plastic still on. It is pretty light on extras and is apparently already out of print, so I guess I should try to flip it before the Criterion is announced.