536 The Thin Red Line

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#101 Post by Tom Hagen » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:09 pm

Unless its a pricing error, the DVDs for this and the Oshima title are both $29.99 vs. $39.99 for the Blu.

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#102 Post by Oedipax » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:33 pm

I'm pretty surprised Malick approved the outtakes! Hopefully there's a lot of them so we can see at least part of what the 5-hour cut would've looked like.

Thrilled there's a commentary track as well. Wow.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#103 Post by Finch » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:01 pm

Very pleased to see this coming out sooner than originally rumoured. On paper, they really went to town on the extras. Could be one of their best 2010 discs.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#104 Post by aox » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:04 pm

I hate to nitpick, but it says "Outtakes", not "deleted scenes". Outtakes are generally 'takes' of when an actor is doing a serious scene and he accidentally bursts into laughter for example. While I am sure these 'outtakes' are indeed really deleted scenes, I wish Criterion would stay consistent with industry jargon. This is assuming of course that they are not actually 'outtakes'.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#105 Post by willoneill » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:30 pm

When they say Outtakes, they could also mean that they're deleted bits of footage, but not complete deleted scenes. Not that every DVD deleted scene is actually a whole scene, but maybe you see my meaning. I'm hoping, more for cuisoity's sake than anything else, that we'll get glimpses of all of the name actors who were left on the cutting room floor ... I'm looking at you, Bill Pullman.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#106 Post by aox » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:37 pm

willoneill wrote:When they say Outtakes, they could also mean that they're deleted bits of footage, but not complete deleted scenes. Not that every DVD deleted scene is actually a whole scene, but maybe you see my meaning. I'm hoping, more for cuisoity's sake than anything else, that we'll get glimpses of all of the name actors who were left on the cutting room floor ... I'm looking at you, Bill Pullman.
I get what you are saying, but I would tend to push those over to the 'deleted scenes' camp. A good example of what you are describing can be found on the DVD/BD of Scorsese's Casino.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#107 Post by Brian C » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:38 pm

The aspect raio has been corrected - now listed at 2.35:1.

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#108 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:37 pm

aox wrote:I hate to nitpick, but it says "Outtakes", not "deleted scenes". Outtakes are generally 'takes' of when an actor is doing a serious scene and he accidentally bursts into laughter for example. While I am sure these 'outtakes' are indeed really deleted scenes, I wish Criterion would stay consistent with industry jargon. This is assuming of course that they are not actually 'outtakes'.
I remember reading something about Penn and Harrelson farting around - literally - in the grass while Malick entreated them to grow up and get with the picture. Perhaps the "outtakes" is a flatulence reel? I know George Clooney likes to let one go now and then on set, what with all the Taco Bell he eats. The Greatest Generation!

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#109 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:40 pm

The audition footage in particular is of particular interest to me.

User avatar
Svevan
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#110 Post by Svevan » Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:03 am

I'm particularly inclined to agree with the particulars of your...particles.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#111 Post by aox » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:54 am

This internet myth of a 5 hour cut* is easily the most annoying whine on the internet this week.

*disregarding a 'work print'.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#112 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:15 pm

What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#113 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:35 pm

oldsheperd wrote:What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?
I believe he's the character with Caviezel's on the beach with the natives and playing with the children in the beginning.
Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#114 Post by Tom Hagen » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:46 pm

I have never been able to figure out why Tom Jane didn't become a star.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#115 Post by matrixschmatrix » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:57 pm

Tom Hagen wrote:I have never been able to figure out why Tom Jane didn't become a star.
PT Anderson says in the commentary how impressed he'd been with him in Boogie Nights, and thought he would be one of the major breakout actors- from that goddamn cast, too.

I wonder if that shitty Punisher movie really hurt him.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#116 Post by cdnchris » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:59 pm

I always liked his small bit in Arrested Development, and wish he had been in more episodes. "I'm Tom Jane." But yeah, I feel that a few bad movie choices really hurt him.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#117 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:59 pm

I'd say he's doing ok now with Hung.

User avatar
Mikos Stenopolis
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:00 am
Location: I have 400 Blows on VHS

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#118 Post by Mikos Stenopolis » Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:00 pm

I really, really hope we at least get to see some of what Mickey Rourke got to play

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#119 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:57 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
oldsheperd wrote:What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?
I believe he's the character with Caviezel's on the beach with the natives and playing with the children in the beginning.
And/or the fellow waiting in the field with an injury while Witt walks up ("I'd'a had you dead to rights")?

[edit/addendum] Actually I think they're two separate actors/characters. I think Jane is the fellow I mentioned. Anyone feel free to correct me.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#120 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:55 pm

This gives me the pleasant task of having to watch the film again, so I'll see if you're right.

User avatar
Forrest Taft
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#121 Post by Forrest Taft » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:23 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
oldsheperd wrote:What character did Tom Jane play? Was this film role the one that ultimately led to his role in Homeless Dad where he declared that he just wanted his kids back?
I believe he's the character with Caviezel's on the beach with the natives and playing with the children in the beginning.
Nope, the guy with Caviezel in the beginning is actually Will Wallace, the son of Malick´s current wife. He also appears in The New World and The Tree of Life. Tom Jane plays the wounded guy Caviezel runs in to when he´s out taking a walk all by himself. "I would have had you Witt if you were a Jap, long ago", he says. Stoked for this release, looks fantastic.

Edit: Also, this means "MyNameCriterionForum" is right. Missed that post...

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#122 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:37 am

Saw the first 30 or so minutes of it, and he's right. I stand defeated :(

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#123 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:01 pm

Thanks for the confirmation. Jane's a good, likeable character actor. I keep hearing that he's worth watching in Stander...

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#124 Post by aox » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:33 am

Tom Hagen wrote:I have never been able to figure out why Tom Jane didn't become a star.
I have felt the same way for years about Anne Sellors

stroszeck
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:42 pm

Re: 536 The Thin Red Line

#125 Post by stroszeck » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:53 pm

Jane reminds me of Aaron Eckhart without the flash and charisma...he's an ok actor but doesn't really get anyone too excited to see him in a particularly visible role...See Punisher for confirmation.

Post Reply