Classic films get the star treatment with new DVD releases

In the unaltered versions of the original "Star Wars" trilogy DVDs, Han shoots first -- as it should be.
---

In the course of a single weekend, a pair of DVD releases have rectified two of my major home cinema gripes. The new reissue of the original “Star Wars” trilogy includes the unaltered theatrical versions of each film – the same versions seen in theaters in the 70’s and 80’s. Meanwhile, a new “Blade Runner” DVD finally offers sound and picture worthy of the film’s brilliance.

But hold up there, bucko – before you rush and add these DVD’s to your collection, consider this: We’ll be seeing a final cut edition of “Blade Runner” and a deluxe “Star Wars” set come 2007. So, are these current discs worth it?

Greedo shoots first? Not this time.
Since their release in 1977, George Lucas has tampered extensively with the original “Star Wars” films. The first altered reissues were released theatrically in 1997 as “special editions.” These versions of the films (with some further tweaks) were released on DVD in 2004.

Lucas has persisted that the films no longer exist in their original form, but the fans are relentless. Lucasfilm has yielded to the might of nerds and released the “Star Wars” trilogy in its theatrical form.

Granted, the discs are ’93 laserdisc transfers … and the audio mix is only 2.0 surround … and the picture isn’t even anamorphic. But all of that melts away when you see Han blast Greedo before the bounty hunter can get a shot off. Being a “Star Wars” purist at heart, I enjoyed these new DVDs immensely. These are the versions I watched as a kid on our VCR and, technical gripes aside, I still love them today.

These DVDs also include the 2004 special editions as an added bonus. For the casual fan who doesn’t own these flicks yet on DVD (for shame) or the avid collector who absolutely needs every version, this set is a great buy. All three will cost you a relatively measly $60, which is a small price to pay for two versions of the greatest film saga of all time.

However, as I mentioned, Lucasfilm is releasing a deluxe set for the 30th anniversary of the franchise next year. The set will include the original and prequel trilogies, but there’s no sign of the unaltered versions. So, if you feel like you need to own the untainted trilogy, these DVDs are worth it. They’re available until the end of December.

A sci-fi masterpiece gets the DVD it deserves
For years, fans of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” have dealt with an awful DVD transfer. Released in 1997, the DVD suffered from horrible picture quality and a harsh audio track. But Scott took pity on the suffering fans and provided us with a glimpse of what we can expect from the multi-disc final cut, due out in 2007.

The current release is the director’s cut of the film, an amazingly deep story, rich with imagery and symbolism. This new transfer is fantastic, a visibly vast improvement in both picture and audio quality. The colors are vibrant, the image is clear and sharp. As a longtime appreciator of “Blade Runner,” it’s refreshing to finally own a DVD that serves this masterpiece of a film justice.

With the upcoming final cut DVD and a limited re-release of the film into theaters, it’s a great time to be a “Blade Runner” fan. Coincidentally, it’s also the ideal time for strangers of the movie to check it out – and at only $15, why not pick up this cinematic gem?

Seriously, I don’t understand how you could say no.

And the format wars rage on: HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray

Cry havoc and let slip the discs of format wars! With the release of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray high definition video disc formats, videophiles are lining up on both sides of the battlefield. As a film enthusiast, I’ve taken a look at both contenders. Sorting through the marketing hyperbole isn’t easy, but I’ve come to an inescapable conclusion: there are no winners in this war and the only loser is the consumer.

The history of home entertainment is marred with war and strife. One of the more famous battles was waged between the VHS and Betamax formats. VHS, as we all know, emerged from the rubble victorious. You can now find Betamax players collecting dust in attics across America (and you might come upon one in the occasional yard sale).

Then came DVD, which took a few years to catch on. But with strong support from studios and no competition to speak of, DVD eventually became the reigning champ of home entertainment. Offering vastly improved picture and sound, menu systems, filmmaker commentaries and a slew of other cool features, you’d now be hard pressed to find a house devoid of a DVD player. For film fans, DVD has been a blessing.

How humanity ever survived without the five-disc unrated director’s cut of “Carrot Top Rocks Las Vegas” (with three minutes of added footage!) is beyond me. DVD made it possible.

But just when your DVD collection peaks at 500, two new formats hit the market. HD-DVD, developed by Toshiba and NEC, is the cheaper of the two. Blu-Ray, created by Sony, Matsushita and Philips, offers greater disc capacity but at a higher price.

So, what's the benefit of investing $1000 in a new format player? Both formats offer a hi-definition picture (1080 lines of resolution versus the 500 of DVD). Many films, especially digitally recorded features (i.e. Pixar flicks and Dreamworks animated movies), will benefit from the upgrade. But what about older movies? Unfortunately for features recorded on film (i.e. almost every movie ever made), it's only a marginal improvement in picture quality.

The sad truth is, there really isn’t much of a difference in features between regular DVD and the new discs. If it wasn’t for the fancy new logos splashed across the DVD case, the average consumer wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. A good quarter of the population doesn’t understand why “black bars” appear on widescreen DVDs – who’s to say they’ll notice a slightly improved picture?

And herein lies the rub: in order to enjoy the hi-def picture, you need an HD enabled TV. According to studies, only 15% of American households own a hi-def capable television, and only 15% more are considering purchasing one in the future.
Are these formats going to succeed when only 15% of America is even capable of watching them? The chances are exceedingly slim.

But the winner of this format war stands to generate billions of dollars in licensing. Some suggest that Sony is using it's overpriced PS3 (set to sell in small quantities later this year for $599) as a host for the Blu-Ray format. Yes, the PS2 is firmly established as the number one gaming console worldwide, but that doesn’t mean that gamers are willing to fork over $600 for the new machine.

Sony is using the PS3 as a stealth infiltration device to establish a beachhead in this format war, and they expect gamers to line up and foot the bill. Personally, I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot with their own marketing strategy. If Blu-Ray fails, Sony may go the way of Sega and surrender the console war to Microsoft and Nintendo.

So, what should we as consumers do? Let the studios duke it out and watch the carnage from afar. There’s simply no compelling reason to invest in any particular format at the moment.

Trust me, if there’s one thing I remember from the 4-disc ultimate unrated director’s cut of “Alien vs. Predator,” it’s this: whoever wins, we lose.

Crank (Neveldine/Taylor, 2006)

***½

I'm a guy who enjoys independent, arthouse, drama and foreign films. I like the occasional musical and I happen to be a big fan of Moulin Rouge! and West Side Story. However, I am indeed a guy and I get a real kick out a well-made action film, the kind that assaults you with gunfire, explosions, car chases and crazy camera angles, but also retains an interesting premise with a sense of plot and pacing. Crank is a very well-made action film.

Chev Chelios (Jason Statham of The Transporter), a freelance hitman, discovers upon waking one morning that he has been poisoned with a Chinese synthetic substance by a vengeful crimeboss. Chev has only a few hours to live and the poison is already working its way towards his heart. Speeding down the road, Chev realizes that the poison is cutting off his adrenaline -- if he stops, he dies. To stay alive, he has to keep his andrenaline flowing.

Think Speed, except the bus is now a revenge-driven hitman, and Sandra Bullock is now Amy Smart.

Many modern action films (*cough*michaelbay*cough*) fail because they aren't any fun. Bouncing breasts and tumbling cars are only entertaining for a little while before they become tedious to watch. A truly engaging action film has to have a certain balance of plot, action and humor. Crank succeeds where many action films fail because it's really fun.

Statham does what he does best with reckless abandon. For two hours he kicks, headbutts, shoots, frowns at, punches, pushes, and drives into nameless henchmen of all sorts; it's ridiculously entertaining. Crank never takes itself too seriously, lest it become too insanely over-the-top. No, the film is constantly aware of its own absurdity and makes sure to keep the realism in check.

The film is heavily stylized, utilizing heavy jump-cuts and interesting editing (i.e. split screen conversations, color filters, etc.) to keep even the most menial of scenes entertaining and dynamic. It's fast moving, well paced and over before you're bored.

It's no Die Hard or True Lies, but Crank is a first-rate action flick, a guy-pleasing festival of gore, cars and bullets.

Granted, the girlfriend might not enjoy it too much ... so, bring your buddies and enjoy.