The Wong Kar-wai thread!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 04 Feb 2009, 21:10

I'm guessing more than a few reviewers are only now seeing this movie for their first time.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Feb 2009, 22:06

Yi-Long wrote:I'm guessing more than a few reviewers are only now seeing this movie for their first time.

That is a pity but you cannot blame people, there is no watchable uncut version in existence (except maybe on VHS but your VCR won't live forever).

Regarding the colours, given that all the DVDs and VCDs have been atrociously looked after, we really have no idea if they're accurate or not. Many of the scenes on the HK DVD I watched you could barely see what was going on. There's no way they were director approved.

I still say: I'd prefer the Redux we have today than what we had before. Which accounted to two DVDs spanning the entire life of DVD and both are atrociously unwatchable. The French DVD doesn't count "IMO".

I'll have to check out my BD soon. I'm interested to see how it compares. The trouble with this is that I found the DVD so hard to follow a true comparison will be hard.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Feb 2009, 22:07

Has anyone found a Chungking Express Criterion vs. Artificial Eye BD or DVD comparison?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 04 Feb 2009, 22:56

Why doesnt the french dvd count? Surely it's less cut than 'REDUX', and has the original music. Just add some english subs to it, and presto!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Feb 2009, 13:34

Yi-Long wrote:Just add some english subs to it, and presto!

Am I bovvered?

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 05 Feb 2009, 13:44

The UK dvd is also pretty useless since it doesn't feature Spanish subtitles.

Happy Together comparison:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompar ... gether.htm

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Feb 2009, 14:13

HungFist wrote:The UK dvd is also pretty useless since it doesn't feature Spanish subtitles.

Am I bovvered?

I don't have the time or inclination to burn my own DVD for every DVD I buy. Besides French DVDs are a rip off.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 05 Feb 2009, 18:04

gasteropod wrote:Can anyone here shed any light on which version of 'Happy Together' looks how it's supposed to? Look at the last two caps of the pic comparison!!!

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/69 ... ether.html

The sun looks very low in the background of that last cap, suggesting sunrise/sunset. So from a pure scientific viewpoint you would expect the light to be orangey (ie 2nd grab).

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 05 Feb 2009, 18:12

bradavon wrote:Has anyone found a Chungking Express Criterion vs. Artificial Eye BD or DVD comparison?

I've ordered the criterion blu-ray and will most likely add the Artifical Eye Blu-ray to my lovefilm rental list. I can compare both to the Miramax DVD but not the Artifical Eye DVD.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Feb 2009, 19:03

That sounds good thanks. The Miramax DVD is the one I used to own. I now own the Korean SE but am only really interested in comparing the BDs.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 09 Feb 2009, 21:39

Chungking UK BD
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/70 ... press.html

WkW DVD collection
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/70 ... ction.html

Chungking dvd is NTSC to PAL

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Feb 2009, 21:43

HungFist wrote:Chungking dvd is NTSC to PAL

Odd, when the 2004 DVD isn't.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 10 Feb 2009, 00:18

Yeah a staggering decision on AE's part to produce a new transfer and then fuck it up monumentally (not just NTSC probs, but it's clarly too dark and over-saturated). Someone over there needs their heads examined.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Feb 2009, 00:44

I read the BD is a bit too dark too (although not as bad). I hope the Criterion doesn't have this infliction.

As far as the DVD goes, the R3 SE is still the way to go.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 25 Feb 2009, 21:01

Ashes Sony DVD:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompar ... oftime.htm

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 25 Feb 2009, 21:18

Thanks. They really need to add the AE DVD to compare properly.

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 17 Mar 2009, 13:23

Just ordered the Tartan WKW boxset, and Ashes of Time from DDDhouse thanks to this thread

Just need to work out which version of Happy Together to get.

Anyone need a copy of 2046 (Tartan)?

monzo44 · Post by **monzo44** » 29 Mar 2009, 15:39

HungFist wrote:publicity materials aren't much to go by. Half of stills are black & white you know.

As for how the film is supposed to look like, I don't know. I don't even know how it looked like on its initial theatrical run. But keep in mind, George Lucas also "intended" his films to be full of cgi. He just didn't have the technology back then...

I'm happy with the French dvd because looks and sounds good. The Redux has ugly colours, ugly cgi, and ugly soundtrack. The visual look suffers a lot, and the change of soundtrack lessens the impact even more.

I've always considered Ashes a masterpiece, no matter if it was the orig. cut of the int. cut. But when watching the Redux, I didn't feel too much anything. It was just an ok film. The punch and brilliancy it used to have was no longer there.

Hi Hung Fist,
sorry I didn't quite get your comment. When you say most stills are black and white do you mean in general or the ones for this film in particular?

The stills I have are definitely colour and I also have the book that was produced for the screening at Venice which is 100 pages of colour photos and I assure you, the Redux looks closer to the intended look the majority of the time.

I finally got to watch the Redux and on the film itself I thought it was a different experience but just as rewarding and in many ways a more enjoyable one. Obviously the improved subs and the improved visuals (Sorry, but I think it looks better than ever before, and I saw the old cut in the cinema) make for a more enjoyable experience.

I didn't find the new music as bad as I feared given the comments I've read on various boards. I think Wong Kar Wai has done his film proud, I'd still love a remastered version of the original cut but as it's unlikely I embrace this new version. I get the impression that some of the restoration work was needed rather than a styalistic choice. Your comparisson to Lucas is apt in that he originally started to restore the Star Wars films when he was horrified by how bad the effects looked on TV but the monster took over and he lost the run of himself.

Take solace from Raymond Chandler, when a friend said to him on viewing the film of the Big Sleep that they had "ruined his book", Chandler calmly walked to the bookcase, took a copy down, opened it and said, "No, it's still the same". You'll always have the original!!

monzo44

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 29 Mar 2009, 15:45

The point is, ofcourse, that we no longer have the original.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 29 Mar 2009, 16:09

I watched Redux again last night, still don't quite fully understand everything in the film but I enjoy watching it as a piece of art.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 29 Mar 2009, 16:13

monzo44 wrote:Hi Hung Fist,
sorry I didn't quite get your comment. When you say most stills are black and white do you mean in general or the ones for this film in particular?

I meant that normally there's no connection whatsoever between how stills look like and how the film is supposed to look like. Stills are publicity material/artwork, often done before the film is finished and by someone who may never have seen the film or have the slightest idea of how the film supposed to look like.

It's like McDonals commercials. The real hamburgers don't look like the ones in their commercials. They're not even meant to.

But this is all really beside the point. We all know Charlie Chaplin wanted all his films to be in color, and that Casablanca is meant to have a huge cgi air battle at the end. But that doesn't justify "correcting" these films 50 years after they were done.

As for Ashes, of course I don't kow exactly how it looked like when it was released in 1994. I do know that there was no cgi sun and Yi Yi Wohaa soundtrack. So half of my hate for this new version is due to the changes I know he made. The second half is due to the new version looking like ass, no matter if that was the original look or not.

monzo44 · Post by **monzo44** » 30 Mar 2009, 17:05

The photo book for Venice is of stills taken by Chris Doyle....probably should have said that earlier.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 30 Mar 2009, 17:34

monzo44 wrote:The photo book for Venice is of stills taken by Chris Doyle....probably should have said that earlier.

Still doesn't mean it's in line with the film's (intended) look as photobook and movie are two separate art forms.

monzo44 · Post by **monzo44** » 30 Mar 2009, 17:37

Yi-Long wrote:The point is, ofcourse, that we no longer have the original.

It's still available on dvd isn't it? Maybe not in the pristine version we'd all like, but available none the less!!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Mar 2009, 17:41

Have you seen it? IMO it "really" doesn't count. It's hideous. I'd be happy with a non-pristine print but it's truly awful.