Steven Soderberg's DVD'S

[L .B . Jeffries]

Tell me guys what is the best Steven Soderberg's DVD'S to get:
Traffic (2000)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Limey, The (1999)
Out of Sight (1998)
Underneath (1995)

I own Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) on DVD and King of the Hill (1993) Kafka (1991) on VHS

Help me out please thanks
________
INFANT WELLBUTRIN (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Holden Pike]

I think the transfers on Traffic and Erin Brockovich are top-notch, with some decent supplemental material (though no commentary tracks - the man has been too busy).

Out of Sight and The Limey both look great, are amazing fu*kin' movies, and have good extras, including commentary tracks.

I own The Underneath on LD, not DVD, but I think the only extra is the trailer. If the transfer is even just as good as the LD, it's worth getting.

I have King of the Hill and Kafka letterboxed on LD, but those don't seem to be headed for DVD especially soon.

The other two you're missing are Schizopolis and Gray's Anatomy. Schizopolis is a personal favorite of mine, a manic, deconstructive, dark satire on the nature of office politics, the language of love, the duality of man, and mayonaise. You'll either fall madly in love with it or eject it from the VCR and toss it under a truck. Gray's Anatomy is another one of Spalding Gray's monolgues (Swimming to Cambodia, Monster in a Box). I'm a slobbering Spalding fan so my perspective may be more than a little biased, but of the four monolgues that have been filmed thus far, Gray's Anatomy is the most visually interesting.

Gray's Anatomy is available on DVD (letterboxed, with the trailer), Schizopolis is not. But the Schizopolis VHS is letterboxed.


I guess it just depends on which of those five you listed you like best. None of them are notoriously awful transfers or anything. I'd recommend The Limey and Out of Sight first myself, but go with your gut (or what's in-stock).



*Also, if you really become a raging Soderbergh fan (like me), he's also along as the "interviewer" of Mike Nichols for the commentary track on the Catch-22 DVD (great flick, very misunderstood when released).

[L .B . Jeffries]

thanks Mr. Pike I was think about getting The Limey I watch it last night after watching Ocean's 11 and I watch The Underneath with my Mom a couple of nights ago and they all kicked *** I haven't seen Erin Brockovich (2000) I was thinking about renting it but it cost 5 to rent, thought about buying a preveisly viewed copy but that's like 10 bucks so I'm thinking about going with the DVD I'm going to the store in about 10 mins to buy a DVD so I'm confused I don't know what to get exactly thanks again

[Holden Pike]

Not only is Out of Sight a great movie and have an awsome commentary track, it also has a very strong making-of documentary that I believe is around 35-minutes long. Of the Soderbergh flicks available on R1 DVD, this is definitely the most "fully-loaded" yet.

And bottom line, the movie is fantastic.


I think Artisan now sells The Limey in a two-pack with Jim Jarmusch's Ghost Dog: the Way of the Samurai. Both are excellent movies and good discs, with a retail tag for the two combined of only $25 - cheaper than some individual films.

[spudracer]

Heck, buy em all L.B. They're all worth owning, and the price on some of them is remarkably low.

[L .B . Jeffries]

I was hoping you would tell me some more info before I left I'm going right now to the store thanks I'll tell you what I got when I get back thanks Mr. Pike
________
The Cliff Condo Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[Guy]

Whos gonna eventually get the Oceans 11 DVD? I probably won't, it depends if I have any desire to re-watch it.

[spudracer]

I'll get it. Haven't seen it yet, but the reviews for it enough are making me want to see it. I even asked a friend who works at the theater to get me an Ocean's 11 poster. I want the red one though. Not the one where they're standing there with an 11 on the ground. :D

[Arthur Dent]

Also, if you really become a raging Soderbergh fan (like me), he's also along as the "interviewer" of Mike Nichols for the commentary track on the Catch-22 DVD (great flick, very misunderstood when released).

I wasn't alive when this movie was released, and therefore don't know what the critics said. But I bought this movie (before having seen it) as a fan of Heller's novel, and I would have to say I was disappointed. It's difficult to do a good adaptation of a novel with so many characters and subplots. The basic story can be summarized, sure, but the viewer misses quite a bit (reminds of a webpage I saw that summarized the entirety of Joyce's Ulysses using only illustrations. Of course, that's a pretty extreme example, but it's sort of relevant here).

[L .B . Jeffries]

well I'm back from Future Shop and I bought The Limey for $15.99 I also Bought and it funny that you mentioned it Arthur Dent Catch-22 I'd seen it before on VHS and it rocks thanks guys for all the help.

[Holden Pike]

Of course adapting a 400-some-page book you can't possibly get all the episodes into one two-hour film. But that's true with just about every novel that's ever been adapted for the medium.

What Buck Henry's brilliant script does is capture the crucial tone, and actually represents a good deal of the episodes along the way as well. The circular structure was genius. And that amazing all-star cast was perfect, from Alan Arkin as Yossarian to Orson Welles as General Dreedle, Jon Voight as Milo Minderbinder to Bob Newhart as Major Major, Richard Benjamin as Danby to Martin Balsam as Colonel Cathcart, from Tony Perkins as Chaplin Tappman to Jack Gilford as Doc Daneeka, and on and on and on.

For a book that seems at first unadaptable, I thought Mike Nichols' Catch-22 was damn good. It's not the book, but that goes without saying. The book is a singular masterpiece, and I don't think the film takes any of that away. In fact, I think it is incredbily respectful of the source material. I wouldn't use the movie as Cliff Notes for the book, but it feels like the people who made the film truly love and understand the novel as much as I do.

It's also an amazing looking film. It was shot on location, with Mexico doubling as Italy. The cinematography by David Watkin (Chariots of Fire, The Three Musketeers, The Four Musketeers, Out of Africa) is amazing, stylized stuff. Don't even bother with pan-and-scan editions of this film, they're criminal.

I'd recommend giving Catch-22 a second look sometime. Once you get the "it's not the beloved book" out of your head, it's really an excellent adaptation with much to offer. Go with what is there rather than focusing on what isn't.

Among the reasons it was a failure upon its release in 1970, besides many being as off-put as you are by it not being what they might have envisioned the book being on screen, it was the same year as Altman's M*A*S*H, which was a different kind of War satire, and incredibly successful. It was also the year of Tora, Tora, Tora on the serious side, and even more paramount in the culture, it was the year of Patton, which won the major Oscars of Picture, Director, Actor and Screenplay.

Catch-22 would have been a hard sell in any year I suspect, but even more so in 1970.

[Holden Pike]

And enjoy The Limey, L.B.

*I'll warn you though that the audio commentary track is purposefully and playfully put together to mirror the film's structure. The beginning and ending in particular will seem very disjointed, and you may wonder if you have a defective disc. It isn't defective. Stay with it, it's worth the effort.

[L .B . Jeffries]

Cool thanks man I just finshed watching the Catch-22 Audio Commentary which I love I haven't read the book but I adore the movie for it's outrages,uncontroled very dark sense of humor and ARKIN'S brillant performance there's something about him that he can make you laugh one second and than the next think you know you don't have a smile and you are very seroius about what he is saying also he pause at the right time in his diaolgue and doesn't say everything in one tone through sentences which also make his acting come of more real and his character becomes more understand through all the dreams,dark alleys and everything else that's going on in his crazy world.

[Holden Pike]

Geeze, you have to read Catch-22 ASAP. It'll be a defining moment in your literary life, a novel that will stay with you for the rest of your days.

[Arthur Dent]

Originally posted by Holden Pike
Of course adapting a 400-some-page book you can't possibly get all the episodes into one two-hour film. But that's true with just about every novel that's ever been adapted for the medium.

What Buck Henry's brilliant script does is capture the crucial tone, and actually represents a good deal of the episodes along the way as well. The circular structure was genius. And that amazing all-star cast was perfect, from Alan Arkin as Yossarian to Orson Welles as General Dreedle, Jon Voight as Milo Minderbinder to Bob Newhart as Major Major, Richard Benjamin as Danby to Martin Balsam as Colonel Cathcart, from Tony Perkins as Chaplin Tappman to Jack Gilford as Doc Daneeka, and on and on and on.

For a book that seems at first unadaptable, I thought Mike Nichols' Catch-22 was damn good. It's not the book, but that goes without saying. The book is a singular masterpiece, and I don't think the film takes any of that away. In fact, I think it is incredbily respectful of the source material. I wouldn't use the movie as Cliff Notes for the book, but it feels like the people who made the film truly love and understand the novel as much as I do.

It's also an amazing looking film. It was shot on location, with Mexico doubling as Italy. The cinematography by David Watkin (Chariots of Fire, The Three Musketeers, The Four Musketeers, Out of Africa) is amazing, stylized stuff. Don't even bother with pan-and-scan editions of this film, they're criminal.

I'd recommend giving Catch-22 a second look sometime. Once you get the "it's not the beloved book" out of your head, it's really an excellent adaptation with much to offer. Go with what is there rather than focusing on what isn't.

Among the reasons it was a failure upon its release in 1970, besides many being as off-put as you are by it not being what they might have envisioned the book being on screen, it was the same year as Altman's M*A*S*H, which was a different kind of War satire, and incredibly successful. It was also the year of Tora, Tora, Tora on the serious side, and even more paramount in the culture, it was the year of Patton, which won the major Oscars of Picture, Director, Actor and Screenplay.

Catch-22 would have been a hard sell in any year I suspect, but even more so in 1970.

Yes, I probably should give it another look. That's the problem I have with reading the book first. I mean, the first time I saw Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, I was extremely disappointed. The length of the movie didn't allow the full brilliance of Burgess' command of language (through the teenage nadsat language, wich was condensed quite a bit. Of course the philosophical ideas of predestination vs. free will were still intact, but that's not really hard to do). But every time I watched it I grew to appreciate the things that made the movie separate from the novel, and therefore appreciable as Kubrick's vision.

I agree that Nichols' Catch 22 had a great cast, though some of my favorite characters were cut. Snowden was in it, but not Chief White Halfoat? One of my favorites scenes in the novel involved White Halfoat stealing Captain Black's car.

Of course I realize not every character or scene could be left in. I haven't seen the movie since I purchased it (about 5 years ago), so I will definitely dig out the tape and watch it again. I'm sure I'll appreciate it more this time around.