"Born on the 4th of July" Being Re-Issued on DVD

[Lurker 5]

Just announced today...

Will the third time be the charm? Just announced from Universal Studios Home Video is yet another new reissue of the Oliver Stone Oscar-winner Born on the 4th of July. Already released twice, both versions with rather inferior transfers, on October 19th will at last give the acclaimed Vietnam epic the 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen treatment, Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround tracks, an audio commentary with Stone, two featurettes and trailers. List price will be a mere $19.95.

You can read about it here.

Neil

[Morlock 11]

Good. I've been meaning to buy it, but the previous transfer (which was notoriously bad) turned me off.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Oh great, now I can rush out, and not get this film of declining relevance too.

[Morlock 11]

I'm not a big fan of the movie either, but I love the score, I wanted to hear Stone's commentary, but just the ugliness of the last version turned me off.

[Eplicon 53]

I previously owned the movie three times on DVD already, so why not go for the Fourth go around?

The older versions had a crappy non-anamorphic transfer with edge enhancement up the wazoo, making it very difficult on the eyes. Still, Stone's commentary made it worth sitting through. He does make reference to Williams a few times, getting emotional during the the homecoming scene when Kovic returns to Massapequa. Stone obviously holds Williams in high regard; Williams gets mentioned in the JFK and Nixon commentary tracks, too.

[Lurker 5]

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think I will pick up the Special Edition of Deep Impact that day instead

[A24 4,331]

I think I will pick up the Special Edition of Deep Impact that day instead

Don't forget to take Ghosts Of Mars too.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Alex, I'd get Blade Runner too, but you know it doesn't wipe my ass as good as toilet paper.

[Ollie 1,059]

I think I will pick up the Special Edition of Deep Impact that day instead

You know the score to that film is great cure for insomnia.

[A24 4,331]

Alex, I'd get Blade Runner too, but you know it doesn't wipe my ass as good as toilet paper.

Sorry but BR is a classic. The above titles are not. Of course, one needs a mind to understand the depth and many layers of this unconventional SF movie. Really, I kind of understand why it is not one of your favorites. Heck, it's simply not a kiddie kiddie movie.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[stewdog1 50]

Alex,

LOL

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

"Look everybody, Joe and Alex are in dispite about a film!"

[John Crichton 4]

"Look everybody, Joe and Alex are in dispite about a film!"

And following this event the sun will set in the west and rise in the east the next morning.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yes Alex, my intellect isn't as vast as yours and I don't "get" Blade Runner. Its beyond me.

But at least I don't go by internet list to tell me my likes or in your case dislikes.

born on the fourth of july is one of those movies that hammered a point into you head. It wasn't subtle, it was a sledgehammer to a fly kind of thing. In the current climate the film is so far out of mainstream that it simply puzzles rather than inspires.

And Alex, never saw Ghost of Mars so I cannot comment on its quality one way or the other.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And following this event the sun will set in the west and rise in the east the next morning.

Actually, do we know the sun will rise the next morning if Joe and Alex will oneday not have a disagreement?

[A24 4,331]

born on the fourth of july is one of those movies that hammered a point into you head.  It wasn't subtle, it was a sledgehammer to a fly kind of thing.  In the current climate the film is so far out of mainstream that it simply puzzles rather than inspires.

Joe, I'm not a fan of Born on the Fourth of July. I'm not a fan of any of Stone's movies. Although, I must confess, I like JFK. But some of his movies are still far more interesting than Deep Inpact or other disaster dummies like it.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ahhh...Deep Inpact, James Horner and Robert Duvall together atlast.

[John Crichton 4]

And following this event the sun will set in the west and rise in the east the next morning.

Actually, do we know the sun will rise the next morning if Joe and Alex will oneday not have a disagreement?

Fortunately we'll never have to find out.

And I guess I'll add to this by saying I've always quite liked Deep Impact. Very good for a disaster movie, and 100 times better than the great flying piece of crap Armaggedon.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I can't watch Armaggedon without feeling dizzy from the hysterical cameramovements.

[John Crichton 4]

I remember seeing a commercial for a new TV series a few years ago, and the big selling point was "from the writer of Armageddon".

Armageddon had a writer? I thought they just got drunk, stuck on some silly cosutmes, and trusted their luck.

[TIEfighter 0]

Alex, I'd get Blade Runner too, but you know it doesn't wipe my ass as good as toilet paper.

and "deep impact" does?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you know there is nothing wrong with liking or disliking a movie.

Just because a movie is considered a classic as BR may be doesn't make it enjoyable to watch by all. Just as a popcorn movie like Deep Impact may not be considered a classic, but might be enjoyable to many. While I can praise a movie like BR for its inventive and beautiful production design, I find it cold and standoffish, with little heart. As for Deep Impact, it may not be as visually astonishing or as nice to look at as BR, but it has far more heart and human elements.

[Morlock 11]

At least Armaggedon had Billy Bob Thornton. There are no actors in Deep Impact that I'd say "The movie looks crappy, but so and so is in it, so it's still worth seeing". It's like Christopher Walken. What do I remember from Poolhall Junkies? Christopher Walken. The Rundown? Christopher Walkin. America's Sweethearts? Christopher Walken. Stepford Wives? David Arnold. And Christopher Walken.

I find Thornton always watchable, at worst- good for a smile.

Plus Deep Impact has Elijah Wood, a major drawback.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Deep Impact has two things going for it that Armaggedon doesn't

Morgan Freeman, and Robert Duval, both far more interesting that my local homeboy Thornton could ever be.

Joe, who knows Billy Bob's mom.

[Morlock 11]

Both great actors, but they're not the kind of actors I'd see or like a movie for.

[A24 4,331]

As for Deep Impact, it may not be as visually astonishing or as nice to look at as BR, but it has far more heart and human elements.

Amazing quote. You just managed to dismiss the core of that what makes this film so special. Human elements is this movie's forté. It's the central theme! More human than human. That would be the same as saying LOTR movies have no huge battles.

Man, this is an eye-opener for me. You really didn't understand anything about it, did you.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[KarmBee 0]

you know there is nothing wrong with liking or disliking a movie.  

Just because a movie is considered a classic as BR may be doesn't make it enjoyable to watch by all.  

Agreed. I didn't get BR either. Nor did I get Citizen Kane... AFI's #1 of the century my @ss.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

You really didn't understand anything about it, did you.  

perhaps you saw more than what is there?

[A24 4,331]

I remember Joe didn't get Citizen Kane either. Aah, there's plenty of other fish in the sea. I don't expect those kind of movies to fair well in a MB that is very Star Wars/Star Trek/Potter minded and where not much else is even considered. Movies with a strong individual style and personality are bound not to please everybody, even if they did severely influence cinema and film making and are still talked about and analysed long after their incept dates.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

As for Deep Impact, it may not be as visually astonishing or as nice to look at as BR, but it has far more heart and human elements.

Amazing quote. You just managed to dismiss the core of that what makes this film so special. Human elements is this movie's forté. It's the central theme! More human than human. That would be the same as saying LOTR movies have no huge battles.

Man, this is an eye-opener for me. You really didn't understand anything about it, did you.

I'm with Alex here. I can't believe you said that Joe....correct me if I'm wrong cause it's been a loooong time I've seen this movie but...

wasn't this basically about the prosecution of people regarding to be different and dangerous but really simply for being different than 'normal' people? They posed a threat for 'humanity' or something. Basically it's a WOII movie.

I would call that 'human elements' and the movie having a heart.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

sorry the movie is a cold fish

it has no heart or soul, its just all production design and nothing else.

There is no character in the film that I identified with, none that I cared about. Lets face it, its another Ridley Scott film that I find overrated. There are other here who like it, and a few I know who don't.

Alex, I said I don't enjoy Citizen Kane, but take it if you want that I don't get it, whats your point attacking Star Wars and Potter, is that the only argument you have. I suppose you like every single critically acclaimed movie. I guess that makes you superior to me, and some others here, but hey you compliment the Hulk in a recent post so your tastes arn't always perfect, or maybe I didn't get that either, and your brilliant for getting it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree with Joe about BR, I saw it twice and considered it a marvelous visual film, but it did little for me emotionally.

The film is cold and distant, it feels like a a person telling you what he heard someone else tell him about what happened to a bunch of people.

[A24 4,331]

I didn't attack Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Potter/Star Trek movies, I only stated that they seem to be the main dish around here. I've no problem with that. I like to talk Star Wars and TESB anyway.

Ridley has put more heart and soul into Blade Runner than in Alien. There's extremely much of his vision in this movie. He knew perfectly what he wanted and fought like hell to get his ideas and his vision on the screen. The performances were perfect and I can relate with each and everyone of them, especially the ones that weren't even suppose to be human. Why? Because of their humanity and vulnerability! Now that was an odd thing in Hollywood! The mean and despiteful "robots" on the loose were very human and the guy that goes after them does an almost lousy job at it. He's a bit of a loser, not a hero at all (Harrison Ford's big problem with the character, BTW).

Blade Runner shows us a grim future with poor human conditions and social alienation. It is the background for questions like "the value of life" (of any life, that is) or "what it means to be alive". It is filled with fragile themes and complex subjects that most people don't expect when seeing a SF movie with Harrison Ford as a cop chasing baddies. They expect a great popcorn ride with a conventional story harboring clearly outlined one-dimentional characters and where good is good, evil is evil. They expect all the things Blade Runner can't give them. Due to its character, its mature subject matter and its complexity, Blade Runner probably isn't a huge crowd pleaser like Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Potter, but through literally countless of references in all kinds of media, Blade Runner still proves to be alive and kicking, and this after 22 years. I think it's easily one of the best movies ever made. In fact, if you study its themes and look at the execution of it, it's a wonder that this fim even exist.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,331]

perhaps you saw more than what is there?

Of all the other BR fans I've talked to, everyone seem to like it for different reasons. We all get something else out of it. That's the beauty of Blade Runner and the beauty of all great art.

but hey you compliment the Hulk in a recent post so your tastes arn't always perfect

I don't consider Hulk great art. The movie has good elements. Obviously, I thought the effects were the worst part of the movie. Everything else surprised me. Well, that's not completely true since I heard many positive things (in real and virtual life ) about Ang Lee's approach with the story (the attention and care he gave the Banners) . That's why I decided to go and rent this movie anyway. I don't passively resign with the flow of this MB. If I see something good, I'll stand up for it. I saw good in the Hulk but it's not great cinema.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

sorry the movie is a cold fish

I guess that makes you superior to me, and some others here, but hey you compliment the Hulk in a recent post so your tastes arn't always perfect, or maybe I didn't get that either, and your brilliant for getting it.

Now you're being childish. There's no need for that.

The film is cold and distant, it feels like a a person telling you what he heard someone else tell him about what happened to a bunch of people.

Perhaps it's supposed to be cold and distant, and that there's purpose to it. Perhaps the sense of meaning for the people in the story is lost in this future. You might be describing the style of the film, and that's not an argument against it...not like this anyway. Watching a lion eat a calf alive in a nature documentary might not be fun to watch, might not be enjoyable, but it could still be regarded as a fantastic documentary. It's the way of some documentaries. An 'unenjoyable' or cold movie is not necessarily an uninteresting (though that can also be seen as enjoyable) or poor one.

So it still doesn't mean it's not a great movie. A movie with a cold and distant heart, is still a movie with a heart.

But I think I'll step out of this part of the discussion, since I can't fully remember everything about the film. So I need to be carefull with what I'm saying.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

so Alex you didn't answer the question I posed, nor did the Prick,

just because a film is critically acclaimed, rated among the best every, are we obligated to like it, I think not. Blade Runner only looks good, but hit feels bad. Just because a film is a crowd pleaser, which Blade Runner is not, nor has been at any point, nor will it ever be, does it mean the film is conventional, with one-dimensional characters.

Raiders is certainly not a conventional, nor are the main characters one dimensional and its a far superior film than BR. It does have a heart and soul, but I will assume, perhaps wrongly, that becuase it was a crowd pleaser of epic proportions, that its just not worthy of the praise. Raiders by the way is still alive and kicking and still influential in film circles today, while in the states at least, BR is just what it was, a film that wasn't among the best of the best of 82.

[A24 4,331]

Please Joe, you don't have to steal my arguments and each time replace the word BR with Raiders. Raiders of the Lost Ark, as great as it is, is a far more superficial movie than BR. It's a classy joyride with lovable but very one-dimensional cartoonish characters. That's OK, it's serves the movie better. It's saturday matinee popcorn in its finest form. Emotionally it's certainly a lot more conventional than Blade runner. Why do you compare them as if to say that it's the other way around?

BR is one of the most influential movies ever made. Why are you denying that? You must be selectively blind not to have noticed that. I've seen its influence everywhere since 1982 and I read references to it all the time, even today. And I'll answer your question: Blade Runner is about the most recently made film that has been admitted in the U.S. National Film Registry (BFI also admitted BR as a Modern Classic). I can tell you that Blade Runner is in some mighty company over there (there's no mention of Deep Impact though). I did not know about this list and I certainly didn't know about it 22 years ago when I said this was going to be a classic. Joe, I don't let lists with critically acclaimed movies dictate my taste. One day I just learned that all the best movies I've seen on TV and in theatre (my personal favorites, if you will) were also being regarded as the very best ever made. I've discovered that critical acclaim agrees with me, or vice versa. Each movie that at one point in time flabbergasted is or becomes a classic. I can't help liking most of them but that doesn't mean that everyone on the planet should love them too, of course. However, I will defend them if you say they are merely forgotten toilet paper and are also being regarded as such.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You believe in public opinion, right?

Do you think the public opinion will say that BR is a better film then Raiders?

[A24 4,331]

You believe in public opinion, right?

Did I say I believe the public opinion? I don't think so. I know that I sometimes concur with public opinion but I usually disagree. If I would believe in public opinion I would like Independence Day. BTW, public opinion is not really existing today. The vast majority of the public is being brainwashed by a couple of super corporations that own and control the whole entertainment industry. But that's another topic.

Do you think the public opinion will say that BR is a better film then Raiders?

They probably would say Raiders. If they should ask me, then I would try to explain that they are both great movies, each in its own genre. If they should ask me which movie handles a more complex subject, my answer would be Blade Runner. Simple as that.

---------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 11]

I remember Joe didn't get Citizen Kane either.

That's no judge of anything. I've found that just about everyone I know who's seen Citizen Kane has not liked or gotten it unless they've seen it at the very least 6-7 times. I've seen it a dozen times and just know am I seriously warming up to it.

Morlock- who freely admits that the few times he's seen BR he just missed the point (not that I'm necasserily conceding that it has a great point, I just haven't gotten it yet)

Morlock 2- who would throw out just about every single complex movie for Raiders. BR got through the point in the book. Raiders is pure filmmaking. Raiders does for me what no other stiry in no other medium could possibly do. Humanity and emotions I could find in several good books.

Morlcok 3- who's sure Alex is gonna bring up apples and oranges

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I can count the number of movies heavily influence by BR on my thumb, while I can't count the number of films influenced by Raiders on both hands.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

I can count the number of movies heavily influence by BR on my thumb, while I can't count the number of films influenced by Raiders on both hands.

In general, quality you can count on a thumb, while quantity can be counted for an eternity. Trash will always be in the majority.

Now for Raiders, which is a great movie....Raiders had a broader audience, so chances are more likely someone will be influenced by it.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

No one have to like a certain movie....but saying that some movie sucks cause you don't like it....well that's different. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't mean it's not quality.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

I know that I sometimes concur with public opinion but I usually disagree. If I would believe in public opinion I would like Independence Day. BTW, public opinion is not really existing today. The vast majority of the public is being brainwashed by a couple of super corporations that own and control the whole entertainment industry. But that's another topic.

Here here.

PS: I commented on this public opinion issue in broader terms and how it's infecting our society today, but decided to scrap the whole thing....perhaps at a more appropriate time.

[A24 4,331]

Yes, at a more appropriate time.

Oh yeah, and Joe, look up the words Blade Runner and "influential" or "influenced" in Google, will ya.

LOL

Overload!