709 Red River

[Finch]

Wasn't going to buy this for a third time after the DVD and the MoC Blu-Ray but with a release this stacked, I'll relent, and my MoC copy is already listed for sale on Amazon.

[zedz]

There is also More! listed, but I wonder if the audio is lossless. They usually say "uncompressed monaural soundtrack", but not for this title.

Maybe the More! will be Much More! Unless the filmed interviews are extremely lengthy, it sounds to me like all the announced content would fit onto a single BluRay (assuming that audio alone doesn't take up much space).

[domino harvey]

Each cut is presumably on its own disc, so two makes sense regardless of extras

[Shrew]

And considering there are only 2 DVDs instead of 3, I'm guessing it was a borderline case where they opted to give the bitrateholics an open bar.

Still, whatever else may come, the book is definitely a huge plus, and having both versions of the film is worth the extra fiscal burn.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

There is also More! listed, but I wonder if the audio is lossless. They usually say "uncompressed monaural soundtrack", but not for this title.

It's obviously an oversight. Specifying a "monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray" (without the "uncompressed") makes no sense unless you believe they're not going to put a monaural soundtrack on the DVD.

[Altair]

With a leap and a bound, this surpasses the MoC in terms of extras (and alternate cuts!). Good thing I held out in anticipation of something more... meaty (although presumably the HD master will be the same for both of them?).

[Minkin]

The *more* has been revealed, nothing too earth-shattering:

Lux Radio Theatre adaptation of Red River from 1949, featuring John Wayne, Joanne Dru, and Walter Brennan
Trailer

Also, the 4k digital restoration has been bumped down to 2k. Eh. Still, incredibly excited for this one.

[Yaanu]

A DVD-only release is now scheduled for July. Supplemental features excluded from this release are the booklet (or a single interview; it's not clear) and the reprinted novel.

[Drucker]

Blu-ray.com

Seems to be slightly different looking than the MOC release, and Svet seems to just so slightly prefer the look of the Criterion.

[manicsounds]

dvdbeaver

[tenia]

I don't know if it's Gary's caps again, but the Beaver comparison makes the Criterion looks seriously blown out in luminosity, though some caps clearly show lost shadow details on the MoC.
For once, I don't think I like this Criterion color scheme. The 2 caps showing Montgomery Clift, notably, look quite washed off.

[boywonder]

I don't know if it's Gary's caps again, but the Beaver comparison makes the Criterion looks seriously blown out in luminosity, though some caps clearly show lost shadow details on the MoC.
For once, I don't think I like this Criterion color scheme. The 2 caps showing Montgomery Clift, notably, look quite washed off.

I will have to see this with my own eyes, but the Beaver screen caps certainly lack a range of contrast. It looks overly bright to the point of washing out details. Yikes, I hope this is just a case of misrepresented stills!

[Finch]

I like the stronger contrast on the MoC as well and yes the whites on the Criterion look blown-out by comparison but the grain is still there so either Criterion used a different master or tinkered with the contrast. Would have kept the MoC if it wasn't for the absence of the pre-release cut and the Criterion comes with the Borden Chase novel on top of more extras so even with the lighter contrast, the Criterion is the disc to own for me.

[tenia]

I like the stronger contrast on the MoC as well and yes the whites on the Criterion look blown-out by comparison but the grain is still there so either Criterion used a different master or tinkered with the contrast. Would have kept the MoC if it wasn't for the absence of the pre-release cut and the Criterion comes with the Borden Chase novel on top of more extras so even with the lighter contrast, the Criterion is the disc to own for me.

Same here. I already own the 2 cuts through the French Wild Side release, but the inclusion of the Borden Chase novel is really what interested me.
However, I'm surprised that, for once, Criterion does not have a stronger contrast, as they tend to adjust / contrast-boost a lot of their B&W titles.

[Jakamarak]

I'm pretty unskilled at this, but looking at the caps -- to my eye -- even though the Criterion images are unmistakably brighter, I am not seeing any blow out. I keep looking for detail loss in the Criterion and, if anything, I'm finding detail loss in the shadows on the MoC screen caps. (Look over the shoulder of Native American in the two shot with the old man for one example). Also, it doesn't seem like it's a contrast issue as the darkest parts of the image on the Criterion are only a shade off from the MoC image.

It seems to me that the Criterion image has notably brighter middle grays, but the extreme highlights and shadows aren't that far off the MoC images (at least as presented in these caps). Perhaps this was how Hawks and Harlan intended it? It is a movie that largely takes place outdoors in the blazing sun and the Criterion caps seem to capture that. No caps are included for night scenes. It would be interesting to compare those.

[jindianajonz]

though some caps clearly show lost shadow details on the MoC.

This is most apparent in the shot where there are two cowboys with guns drawn standing with their backs to a covered wagon (look at the detail lost on the right cowboy's pants) on the shot of the cowboy all in black in front of a herd of cattle (the seem and two buttons just above his belt buckle all but disappears)

Still, I'd agree that overall the MOC looks much better. Since I'll be getting the Criterion to allow sharing with region-locked friends, though, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it only looks bad when the two are side by side, and I won't even notice it while watching.

[Drucker]

It is a movie that largely takes place outdoors in the blazing sun and the Criterion caps seem to capture that. No caps are included for night scenes. It would be interesting to compare those.

This was my thought. Many of the caps Gary has posted are outdoor scenes, but the indoor scenes on the bluray.com review look alright to me. We'll have to see.

[aox]

Agreed. Look at the BluRay.com caps that are indoor and at dawn/dusk.

[Fred Holywell]

...the Beaver comparison makes the Criterion looks seriously blown out in luminosity, though some caps clearly show lost shadow details on the MoC. For once, I don't think I like this Criterion color scheme.

I agree. Was hoping the problem was with Beaver's caps, but that doesn't seem to be the case, based on a check of BluRay.com's images. Saw a gorgeous 35mm print in a revival house 30+ years ago, and I remember the image being deep and rich and luminous -- not washed out and thinly detailed, at all; much closer to the MoC and MGM discs, than Criterion's. Wonder why Criterion chose to go the way they did.

[vladding]

Very odd that Criterion went all lighter. MoC clearly superior in grain and black levels as Tooze points out. Criterion package of course blows it out of the water though.

[AMalickLensFlare]

I've nothing to compare it to, but it looks okay to me. Great film...my first time seeing it.

[Drucker]

Anybody else picked up and watched the film that can compare it to the MOC? Really want to buy the Criterion to get the full package, but would love some feedback on the quality.

[Roy Batty]

While I agree the subject is open to speculation, I am of the opinion that screencap comparisons like this one clearly show that there's something wrong with MoC transfer's contrast. Look at the match's flame.

Or these two captures:

Eureka / MoC




Criterion



There are no real whites on the MoC, only shades of gray.

I would say the somewhat bloomed-out look of the Criterion reflects the kind of light you would find on the American prairies, awash in a kind of haze, rather than the harsher contrast on the MoC (that, to my eye, also shows some artificial sharpening).

[Drucker]

Yeah, unless that description from MoC is missing something, the changes seem pretty concentrated in spots, nothing that would impact the overall pacing.

I love Red River, and it's a masterpiece with flaws. Not enough to sink the film, but you just have to accept that they're there and Hawks himself will be the first to admit them. Personally, I don't think the pacing is a problem though. The main problems lie elsewhere.

For starters, Joanne Dru and John Ireland are not at their best - I think Hawks said that Dru wasn't a good dramatic actress at the time and Ireland didn't have it together during the shoot (I have a vague recollection of Hawks complaining that he was either drunk or high all the time, I forgot which). With Ireland, it had a bigger impact on the film because Hawks said he started to cut back on Ireland's role when it was obvious that he wasn't going to deliver. Not at the editing stage either, during the shoot Hawks would just drop some of his lines or pull his appearance altogether in scene after scene. Sucks that happened, but they're not central to the film.

Hearthesilence, would love to know what you think the flaws of this film are. Thanks for the story about Ireland. It definitely was off-putting that he wasn't used more as it's certainly set-up that he would be.

Quite frankly I was blown away watching this last night. I'd seen His Girl Friday and Rio Bravo and they both did little for me, and were just nice movies that I really had no interest in re-watching. Red River, however, was a damned masterpiece. When I'm watching John Wayne movies, I frequently find that I'm put off just by how out-matched other characters can be. In Rio Bravo this was certainly the case. Not so, here, though, as Montgomery Clift is absolutely up the task and perfectly cast.

The film's greatest strength is the way it shifts tone. The high hopes of settling in Texas are quickly dashed early on. As Wayne's character evolves to be angry and untrusting, we still root for him, and his development is handled perfectly. Off the top of my head (and I don't remember the film that well), Fort Apache is a film that didn't sit right with me, partially because I didn't feel there's really a sense of what makes Fonda's character so angry. Here, we get just enough background on everyone and their relationships with each other, that every action they take makes sense to me.

My favorite moment was right before they set out for Missouri and the camera spins around doing a 360-degree spin. You could see the edges of the celluloid, as if you were looking through the camera yourself, as the camera turned. Really a fun thing to watch.

SpoilerShow

After reading the "about the differences" I realized that the pre-release ending is longer, and I'll have to watch that tonight. It certainly does seem short, but I didn't find it to be such a problem. The real story of the film is the journey. By the time we fight, we know who has made it, and we know that Matthew is going to give Dunson his fair share of the money. We just got a shootout scene with Comanches a few minutes earlier. While the fight at the end could have been longer, and maybe the ending could have lasted more than a minute (in terms of their reconciliation), I think the ending, though abrupt feeling, still works out fine.

[movielocke]

Is the DVD version windowboxed?