The commentary on To Catch a Thief is dishwater dull, but I'd put most of the blame with Bouzereau, who sets the tone with inane questions and chit-chat. I'm guessing Bogdanovich would be bored witless these days having to regurgitate well-worn stories, so it would have been better to have someone drilling more profound, hard-hitting questions and observational comment about the film (which has more going on than meets the eye).

I have to disagree on basic principle, as John Carpenter (especially when joined by Kurt Russell) has no business being mentioned in a 'bad commentary' article.

Not to derail this any further away from Captain Bogdans, but I can't believe no one has mentioned Roger Avary's track on Day of the Dead. Well maybe I can since this site isn't exacty the same demographic - but that is hands down the single worst commentary I have ever experienced.

It isn't that bad since it doesn't pretend to be anything more than a fan commentary (and he makes a few very good points along the way). It isn't as excruciating as, say, William Friedkin's commentary for The Exorcist: The Version You Wish You Hadn't Seen

I think the demographic isn't as rigidly defined as you may think. I'm looking forward to seeing 28 Weeks Later, especially since it seems that the sequel has been put in the hands of an interesting director (whose previous film was Intacto with Max Von Sydow).

As much as I like commentaries I think that they shouldn't be forced on filmmakers who might not want to do one. That just causes unnecessary discomfort for both the commentator and the audience! I don't think we should get into an all DVDs need commentaries/all commentaries are poor debate - it is more a case of making sure that a commentary track is relevant and/or entertaining - I've seen films with multiple commentary tracks that make full use of the time, and some that barely manage to keep my attention for the first ten minutes!

Bitter experience suggests otherwise.

His main problem might be remembering them.

Still in bitch mode worst commentary by a director for his own work Gus (depsite a valiant effort by co commentator Matt Dillon) on Drugstore Cowboy. Gus grunts and mumbles not even forming monosyllables. Presumably stoned.

I didn't know that Matt Dillon could speak without a script: well, credit where credit's due.

Skuhn maybe it was Gus' stonedness but Matt sounds like Gore Vidal!

My guess is that Van Zandt was still perfecting his Bill Belichick impersonation.

"...Matt sounds like Gore Vidal!"

I can honestly say that I never thought I would live long enough to ever read that sentence

Believe me, I'm not trying to be a shitstirrer here, but the commentary on MOC's Nosferatu (especially Brad Stevens' 'contribution') ranks as one of the worst commentaries I've ever listened to (Brunette's Bergmanian silence on Blow Up actually kicks ass over this one!).

I learned nothing...and before a week ago I'd never even seen the film. How on earth does stuff like this pass quality control? Stevens said nothing of substance and what he did say was in the most annoying suspense-laden voice: "Prior to Nosferatu. Murnau had directed. (oh oh he's going to give us a specific fact!!) a lot of films." (oooooohhhhh...well, thanks.) Is it too much to ask to maybe scratch together a couple notes before coming into the studio? Maybe some questions...or maybe talk a little about the film you are supposed to be commenting on, besides the obvious stuff on screen: "Note. the carnivorous. teeth." I felt embarrassed for Dixon; his attempts at intelligent discourse were repeatedly stumped. Just check out the 'discussion' regarding the designation of Acts and the suggestion that perhaps it was due to length of film rolls. Stevens: "No, I don't believe Nosferatu was ever serialized." Yeah, Dixon thought a 90 minute films was spread out over a few months.

Still one of the best packages though. No regrets on the purchase and with the week dollar I took a beating on it.

The worst thing about the "Nosferatu" commentary was that one of them said he preferred the film untinted....
Curiously, the "Tabu" commentary by the same guys is really informative.

Now I'm torn. I actually just ordered the MoC yesterday (still time to cancel), which comes to about $15 more than the Kino. I got it for the commentary (which Gary Tooze said was "very worthwhile," the booklet, and well, the fucking awesome cover. But I'm not sure that's worth an extra $15 when the transfers are comparable.

Gary is a godsend when it comes to comparisons on transfers. But when it comes to commentaries....he'll give high marks to anyone with a pulse: Schickel, anyone.

The best extra on the MOC is the booklet. 80 pages with a lot of food for thought. A lot. That's worth the extra $15 right there. I highly recommend the MOC, but just don't understand how that commentary made it onto the disc.

Any thoughts on William Goldman's commentaries?

I'd also say that the book (really more than just a booklet) is worth the extra money. The "Nosferatu" commentary is not the worst I ever heard: Just think of the commentaries on the MGM Bergman set... At least Dixon and Stephens manage to get over what feels like a lively conversation. But of course I agree: they just don't point out anything that isn't already obvious or can be read in the booklet , and sometimes they fall into pure drollery. It might serve as a brief introduction to the film and its backgrounds, but nothing more.

The Goldman commentary I listened to which I really enjoyed was one he did with David Koepp on Panic Room. He did a great job moderating the discussion and asking a lot of the questions about Koepp's writing process and how the film changed over various drafts. They also get into what it is like (but how necessary it is) to let go of your script to let the director make changes that you may not as a writer approve of versus things that Koepp directed himself from novels he had adapted such as Stir Of Echoes and the about to be released at the time of the commentary Secret Window.

It is one thing to discuss another person's film and then talk about something you have personally worked on, so I don't know whether he would remain as engaging in commentaries for films he was involved in himself!

I still have yet to hear a worthwhile commentary for this film, and in general I walk thru a wasteland when it comes to the world of early german cinema. Nosferatu (I stuck w the Kino after seeing them compete--well-- w MoC for the first time in their lives), 3groschenoper, Pandora's Box, although the Lang's are some decent example. I know Diamond Dave Hare isn't crazy about Kalat, but his enthusiasm on Testament is imh(umble)o one of the best in the collection.

In terms of silents in general, Donald Richie's A Story of Floating Weeds is worth listening to. But that's no news, he's usually worth a spin no matter the film.

Except for his tic of saying, in a question and answer session with himself, "what?"

Like, as in: "As we listen to Schreck bitch we can conclude... what?-- 'here is a man who is Way Too Pissed About Silent Film Commentaries?' Or maybe, 'well he does have a little eency point when you sit down and listen to what these doofaces are actually saying on these tracks?'"

It's actually sorta entertaining listening to the old guy slide outside of himself there unexpectedly. It's very Hebert Stencilian.

That reminds me of listening to his Rashomon commentary for the first time and without realising he was asking a rhetorical question when he said something like "and what is going on in this scene?" for the second or third time, I said to the television "Well if you don't know, how do you expect me to have a clue?"

I have listened to that commentary again recently and found I got a lot more out of it so perhaps like the film he is talking about Richie recorded a commentary that slowly reveals hidden depths under a deceptively simple surface? Or perhaps I just listened to the commentary again with a more forgiving ear!

Marc Gervais's Persona commentary has come up a couple of times recently, which reminded me of this thread, and I see zedz mentioned that very track on the previous page, although it sounds like he got further with it than I did. I believe I only ever gave it about 5 minutes. After spending 4 1/2 minutes stammering things like, "Projection stuff... reels... Ooooh, a spider! What is going on here? Looks like a sheep. Some symbolic thing happening here... What is this? Where is Bergman going with this? Part of a building... A person's face..." etc. he then starts a statement with, "When I first saw this..." My thought was, "Oh, it sounded like right now, as you're recording the commentary, is the first time you've seen this."
I feel kind of sorry for the man, who seems like a kindly old Jesuit, partly after reading this blog post, which ends by asking the reader to pray for Gervais "as he confronts the challenges of aging and diminishment."