my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Boxoffice Magazine's DVD "Reviews"

Author Topic: Boxoffice Magazine's DVD "Reviews" Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 04-20-2004 03:08 PM                     Does anyone read the DVD "Reviews" section on Boxoffice Magazine's online edition? One would think (or hope) that a trade publication would strive for a little more accuracy, but it's pretty clear that reviewer Wade Major doesn't actually look at these films beyond studying the covers (if even that). Some examples: Hello, Dolly: "What disappoints about the DVD is the audio -- the monophonic mix is certainly good enough to enjoy the movie and far superior to what casually passes on television, but it's not nearly up to snuff with comparable work being done on older musicals by the likes of Warner Bros. Fortunately, Streisand's voice shines in mono, as does the immortal rasp of Louis Armstrong, whose rendition of the title song is among the most memorable of any song in movie history." Wrong: The soundtrack on the DVD is 4.0 (l-c-r-s) although not the same mix as I heard in the theatre last year. Major must have glanced at the Spanish and French MONO boxes on the back of the DVD by mistake, although even the English box incorrectly indicates 2ch stereo. Sweet Charity: "**1/2 (Audio: B+, Video: B+, Features: F+) The virtually extra-less DVD..." Wrong! Sweet Charity has a number of extras. They're just not listed on the box. If Mr. Major had only taken the time to pop the DVD into his player, he would have noticed that an alternate "happy" ending is included, as well as two "making of" featurettes and a preview used for the reserved seat 70mm engagements. The Greatest Show On Earth: "The DVD of the black-and-white film lacks extras but features fine Paramount transfer quality in both audio and picture." Wrong! Shot in glorious 3-strip Technicolor. I haven't seen the DVD box of this title yet, but I'm wondering now if it has a misprint stating b&w. And while the following can't be attributed to mis-reading a DVD cover: Star: "This beautiful anamorphic DVD, which very effectively captures the roadshow glory of the original 70mm Cinemascope print." Wrong: The film was roadshowed in 70mm Todd-AO. 70mm Cinemascope is a term that would indicate a 35mm to 70mm blow-up, and Star! originated on 65mm film. [ 04-21-2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Paul Linfesty ]  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-20-2004 03:48 PM                     That's why I gave up my subscription to Box Office magazine about 10 years ago. They kept on screwing up details. So I see somethings don't change. The only good DVD reviews I like come from Widescreen Review. They have all the facts and details.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-20-2004 04:51 PM                     Why is a MOVIE THEATRE trade publication reviewing HOME DVDs anyway?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2004 06:59 PM                        Must only be in the online edition. I haven't spotted any DVD reviews in the mag.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.