DaveyJoe

That's what this review suggests: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Thief-...119278/#Review

hdnmickey

This.

TheDude

Last year I watched the Blu-ray Criterion Thief and was completely blown away. The picture quality & anamorphic print are gorgeous. For me, this Blu-ray is literally like seeing the movie for the first time (the several other times I saw the film were on the older non-anamorphic DVD). This new release brings the film from merely good status to great status; it just goes to show how much a sub-par, non-anamorphic print can severely mar the quality of an otherwise excellent movie...

Earlier in this thread there was a comparison still from the Blu-ray & HD-TV. I strongly prefer the Blu-ray still, since it's darker & thematically goes along with the way the rest of the film should look...I don't like the HD-TV theatrical cut still as much, since it's too "light" & pink, IMHO. Irregardless of the way the film looked like when it first came out in the theater, that was 30+ years ago and I don't mind some minor modifications, as long as they improve the film & don't change it too much...

As to the film itself, excellent story & acting. And, the Tangerine Dream score is incredible - to the point that I can't imagine the movie having a score by anyone else. The neon lights, rain-soaked night streets, & early '80's sheer urban vibe of the film are all improved by their music.

One of the many scenes that really stood out here was the POV from the top of Caan's car, and the various neon lights/signs that are reflected on the hood as he's driving late at night....

Also enjoyed the music in the Chicago blues bar where Caan meets Tuesday Weld for their date.

Subgeniusguy

Where is the steelbook of which your speak? Is it a store exclusive? I’ve only been able to find the "limited slipcase edition.” Did I miss out on it?

I wasn’t going to get this, but after seeing the Beaver review with the inclusion of the theatrical cut, I couldn’t resist. Plus, since it is limited to 3000, I’m not waiting.

Arrow has become one of my favorite labels lately but I’m a little hesitant to embrace their US releases. Day of Anger preorder is about twice as high on Amazon.com as it is on Amazon.co.uk.

E Unit

My bad, it's a limited slipcase edition, shown here. I thought it was listed as a steelbook when I first ordered it, but that was a few months ago.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00Q4VQ04Y

zyzzle

All I know is that when I saw the movie in theaters in 1981, it looked much more like the 'theatrical version' than the 'director's cut'.

I'm glad we've got a choice now. Those who want a 2014 look for a 1981 film can eat their hearts out. Those who prefer the more earthy tones, get their wish as well. I just find the 'theatrical' more lifelike, less like I'm looking through a filtered, processed teal lens.

So, we're all happy and can appreciate THIEF for the classic which it is!

Similar story happened with DRACULA '79 -- where the version I saw in the theatre had vibrant, deeply saturated colors and the version we've been given on DVD and Blu-ray has been drained of all color. We were not given a choice.

Doctorossi

It's a piece of art; what does "lifelike" have to do with it?

Solid Snake

wtf? Thief was nominated for the Palme d'Or?! Did not know that....

zyzzle

"lifelike" = more pleasing to the eye, specifically to my eyes upon viewing the film.

It's a piece of art sure, but it's also a fine story, and when the filtering technique imposes upon the enjoyment and / or clarity of the story, we have a lessening of the whole.

Peace out... Enjoy THIEF, folks!

Paul_SD

I'm going to answer this in the general as I didn't find the color grading on this Bd to be as off putting as the screen caps seemed to imply.

All art is a contrivance. Whether it is obviously contrived (a highly stylized abstract work) or even when it is relaying something objectively and striving for a sense of hyper realism.

When someone says something like "lifelike" I take that to mean the story is being told with a minimum of overt visual stylistic distractions (i.e. cartoonishly over saturated, or colors skewed consistently to a specific points, or contrast jacked up to crush shadow detail and blow out highlights regardless of the circumstance- for just a few examples).
Maybe a easier way to think of it would be the difference between a woman who knows how to use make-up so that it doesn't appear that she is wearing it, compared to pornstar whose make-up is obvious and garish and makes no pretense of trying to look natural. Both women are employing artifice- one is in the service of trying not to distract, while the other is accomplishing just the opposite.

JMO, but that's the way I see it. Too many contemporary movies manipulate the image in unnatural directions, and it's usually obvious and distracting (to me). It doesn't put me into the material as much as distance me from it and keep me watching it at a distance, admiringly.
Clever isn't the same thing as cathartic.
Filmmakers used to strive for the latter, but the last 25 years or so it seems too many want you first to appreciate how clever they are...and by the way, enjoy the story.

Doctorossi

My point is that you can describe it as "lifelike" all you want, but it doesn't mean that what, to you, is a "lifelike" appearance is what was intended by the filmmakers. Not all photography/cinematography aims to be "lifelike"; the point is to capture a mood that enhances the telling of a story and often this means deliberately "unreal" choices.

It doesn't "impose upon" the enjoyment or clarity of the story when it's part of the telling of the story. The presence of Luke Skywalker doesn't "impose upon" Star Wars; he's part of the story that Star Wars is trying to tell.

Doctorossi

This is a fine and reasonable criticism of modern cinema, but I don't want it impacting my video releases. The qualities you describe, for better or worse, are the choices of filmmakers. I want video releases of films to reproduce those choices as accurately as possible and then we each can individually decide how we feel about any of those individual choices within each film.

No offense to you, but I want my Blu-rays to look the way the filmmakers prefer, not the way you prefer. If you want to manipulate the look, you can adjust your TV. If we're not going to let filmmakers be in charge of their own cinematic expression, what's the point of lending them our eyes and ears in the first place?

Paul_SD

No offense taken. And I understand the reaction. But there's a bit of confusion. Most of my post was in response to the subject of art in relation to "life-like"...and then my addendum of how heavy stylization impacts how I personally interface with material.

This is one reason I'm not tempted to watch a lot of contemporary content. And yes, directors (or the producer if the director is merely a work for hire craftsman) should be able to release his vision on the Bd for you to see. The problem for me comes when you put 30 years on these directors- 30 years of additional new stimuli, experiences, biases, etc- and then allow them to modify the work that they didn't make (their 70 year old self didn't make the film, their 40 year old self did).
These simply are not the same people- they've changed over the years.
You are no longer getting the film that a 35 year old Michael Mann made under the influence of whatever creative forces he was into at the time. What you are getting now is only some of that with the rest filtered through a prism of what a 70 Michael Mann in 2015 is obsessed with. It's simply not the same film at that point. To what degree it is different is arguable ...but the fact is, it IS altered.

I realize people will disagree with that and default to the directors final word (for the moment) being sacrosanct.
I fall on the side of the original theatrical version being sacrosanct.

hanshotfirst1138

I've lately opined that the way something looks when it's original released theatrically is the way it should look on reproductions and home video releases going forward, and other alterations should be presented as different versions. I once held to the content creator as the "Word of God," but then 1997 happened, and boy did I change my tune on that. However, it is also worth noting that in some cases, the "correct" look for something can be nebulous. After all, prints degrade, people have TVs set differently, etc. That said, based on what I've seen in this thread, I'm inclined to lean more towards Josh's side, as I find it pretty difficult to believe that the teal push was likely part of the aesthetic of the film originally, especially given that various versions of the film under said conditions haven't had it, and its recent popularity in home video "remastering." Either way, 9 times out of 10, it's academic, and whatever the director decides to use for the HD master becomes the de-facto version. In this case, there has actually been a choice for the consumer. It's hardly going to set a precedent, but it's a nice change.

DaveyJoe

I agree that the screencaps don't really reflect how the Criterion looks. I can't say for certain how Thief looked when it first screened, however, I don't think anybody's memory is reliable evidence especially after 30 years, and anybody posting about Thief in HD probably watched the movie on DVD more recently than in a theater. I'm no expert when it comes to this, but I've enjoyed reading the thoughts of the reviewer over at BR.com on this issue:

It would be really amusing if the people railing against the remaster because of historical inaccuracy were dead wrong about which transfer is closer to the original release. I think it's a valid issue when it comes to home video, I just haven't seen any convincing evidence, just a few people swearing up and down about how they remember it.

hanshotfirst1138

It does sound like both the DVD and the HDTV broadcast also didn't have the teal push, and I don't think the VHS release did either. This also wouldn't be the first time Mann has altered something later on either. Doesn't necessarily mean that the Criterion release is "wrong," but it does mean that the weight of the evidence isn't necessarily on its side .

DaveyJoe

This also wouldn't be the first time that people on the internet were wrong. I think Criterion and Mann using the original answer print for color reference is pretty strong evidence.

zyzzle

Very well expressed, and I think this is the crux of the matter, and also the elephant in the room that many folks seem to be ignoring.

I think film should not be a liquid medium... Once a film is released to theatres, it should be "in the can" and that version (original color-timing) should be the version preserved and released over the years. It's sheer revisionist history and egoism not to.

Now, the beauty of home video is that directors, producers, and the like should be able to revisit their films, augment them, etc. BUT, what many are losing sight of is that it becomes modification of film history when you release a 'definitive' or 'director's cut' 30 years later -- perhaps after reflection, maturity, new biases -- and refuse to preserve the original theatrical presentation.

That is my beef. Sure, tinker all you want, Mr. Mann, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Friedkin, but for God's sake, preserve the original theatrical versions (OCNs) for sake of historical accuracy! It may be, that in 20 years, Mr. Mann will release a new definitive version of THIEF in a neon-purple push, but at least now, we'll have a preservation of the 1981 natural colors thanks to Arrow's efforts.

d2cheer

Did you see it in the theatre right before you watched the DVD?

Josh Z

Michael Mann says that he used the original answer print for color reference on Thief.

Michael Mann also says that he never made any changes to Heat, and yet the Blu-ray has been re-edited to remove a couple lines of Al Pacino's dialogue.

http://collider.com/michael-mann-bla...urt-interview/

You're putting an awful lot of faith in statements made by a man who's proven many times over the years to be an unreliable source of information about his own movies.

If you read that entire interview in Collider, it's pretty clear that Mann's attitude is that movies are a fluid medium and are never "finished." He says flat-out that anytime he rewatches an old movie and sees something he doesn't like anymore, he just goes ahead and "fixes" it. He doesn't have any concern whatsoever about preserving the original version of a film.

RocShemp

Sorry to sidetrack but aren't most director's like that? For instance, after Batman was released theatrically, Tim Burton had a brief moment during a foot chase removed. It was just after Batman and Vicky Vale escaped the art museum. A little girl saw Batman and asked "is it Halloween". While watching a theatrical presentation of the movie, Burton felt that bit ruined the flow of the chase sequence so he had it cut and all theatrical prints replaced. As far as I know, that bit of footage has since never even been seen. Not even so much as deleted scene.

I'm sure that there are other directors that have done the same. Heck, wasn't Stanley Kubrick also notorious for doing things like that?

Solid Snake

I think by the time he had power, his theatrical cut... was the only cut that mattered when he was alive. Framing could be another thing though...

Josh Z

I would not say "most" directors. Some, yes, but others understand the importance of preserving a movie as it was originally completed. With the exception of 'New York, New York', Martin Scorsese has refused to alter or revise his older movies, even ones like Gangs of New York that he's expressed disappointment with. Other directors will make both the old theatrical version and new Director's Cut available simultaneously.

Ringmaster

It is seen briefly in the making of documentary on the DVD/Blu-Ray. I knew the scene existed as a little kid because it was on one of the 2nd Series trading cards that was released in 1990.

DaveyJoe

When Scanners was released, Criterion came out and said that they used the colors Cronenberg 'prefers now.' So I believe them when they say they used the answer print for color reference on Thief. I am bugged that he changed Heat, I loved that line about sifting through the detritus.