Video review: "Lawrence of Arabia: 50th Anniversary Edition"

“Nothing is written,” T.E. Lawrence famously says. But almost from the moment “Lawrence of Arabia” hit theaters in 1962, it seemed destined to become one of the most iconic films ever made.

It is by most reckonings the pinnacle of the epic movie-making impulse that surged in the 1950s and ‘60s – a grand, lush drama filled with exotic foreign trappings and a history-making tale to tell. It won a slew of awards, including the Best Picture Oscar, and deserved them all.

A restoration of director David Lean’s masterpiece was released in theaters in 1989 – one of the last films distributed in a 70mm print. Now, a new digital remastering from the original film negative has been completed for the movie’s 50th anniversary. After a brief theatrical run, it debuts in two Blu-ray collections.

The story is familiar to any serious film-lover: an oddball British lieutenant (Peter O’Toole) is plucked from obscurity during World War I to act as liaison to the disparate Arabic desert tribes, and ends up forging them into a united army that helps take down the Turkish Empire. As he becomes a famous and charismatic figure, Lawrence finds his sanity crumbling as his lust for power grows.

“Lawrence” has seen a number of video editions, but this represents its first time on Blu-ray. For comparison, I popped in my copy of the film from its 2001 DVD edition and then watched the same scenes on the new Blu-ray. The gap between the two was simply astonishing.

Of course, the image was much crisper and cleaner in the higher-resolution Blu-ray based on Sony’s 4K remastering. But what really struck me were the colors, which were dazzlingly vibrant in the new edition.
If you thought the golden sands and aching blue skies of the desert looked good before, you won’t believe how much they leap off the screen of the Blu-ray. When Lawrence first dons his white Arabic robes, it seemed like O’Toole was standing right before me.

Of course, it comes with a host of extra features – some seen before in previous editions, and some all-new. The highlight is a new graphic-in-picture track that allows the viewer to learn about the customs and rituals of the desert tribes. There is also a featurette featuring O’Toole looking back on the film, newsreel footage of its New York premiere, and more.

The 50th Anniversary Edition is available as either a two-disc version or the four-disc Gift Set. Opt for the latter, and you’ll receive several more featurettes, a never-before-seen deleted scene and conversations with Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese.

The Gift Set also comes with a handsome 88-page coffee table book, a CD of Maurice Jarre’s unforgettable musical score (including previously unreleased tracks) and an authentic 70mm film frame (newly printed and numbered).

“Lawrence of Arabia” has never looked so good.

Movie: 4 stars out of four
Extras: 4 stars

Commentary: Swimming down the video stream

Last summer I wrote that, despite the advent of more digital download options, I thought DVD/Blu-ray represented the best format for home video. I still generally feel this way, but to borrow the title of a wonderful 1988 movie, "Things Change."

The biggest shift came in November, when Netflix -- which represents three-fifths of all on-demand movies sold -- announced a new online-only membership plan, and increased the number of titles available for instant viewing.

Plus, many more options for downloading or streaming movies have ramped up: Amazon Instant Video, Apple iTunes, Hulu Plus, Wal-Mart's VUDU, to name a few.

I still hold that a physical disc is the best option for watching movies. The picture and sound quality is unbeatable, and you don't have to worry about filling up your memory drive or getting your entire film collection zapped by a thunderstorm.

But for casual viewing, whether on the big-screen TV in your living room or on the go with your mobile device, streaming/downloading has many advantages. If you're just renting, it's a lot cheaper than shelling out to buy a disc. And the ability to choose your movie and start watching it within seconds (via streaming) is a consumer's dream.

Until recently I was working at home with our son, and when I needed to distract him for a few minutes there was nothing easier than using Netflix to call up a Barney or Care Bears video. (Hey, he's 6 months old, so no accounting for taste.)

The analogy I make for discs vs. downloads is your friends vs. your Facebook friends. Your friends are solid, real and valuable to you. Your Facebook friends are folks you want to stay loosely connected with -- the ease and convenience of doing so online means you don't have to lose sight of them completely.

In the same way, streaming video is for movies you want to watch right now, and convenience is paramount. With more choices available online, it becomes a more attractive option.

Still, the vast majority of titles are only available as a disc. For instance, if you want to watch "Things Change," you'll have to have Netflix mail you a disc -- it's not available for streaming.

Video review: "The Road"

A Man. A Boy. We know they are father and son, because they call each other so, but we never learn their names. They're bedraggled and filthy, their cheeks caved in with dire hunger, as they push their meager possessions in a rusty shopping cart down an ash-strewn road, with the threat or horrendous death around every turn.

That's the bleak yet uplifting world of "The Road," one of 2009's best films -- which almost no one saw because it barely got released in theaters.

It's out on video now, and I urge people to give this spare, understated near-masterpiece a chance.

Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smith-McPhee star as the pair struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Taking a cue from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Cormac McCarthy, director John Hillcoat ("The Proposition") underplays the performances and the dialogue. Screenwriter Joe Penhall lets the emotional drama assert itself without superfluous embellishment.

We're not even sure what turned the world into such a forbidding expanse of death and decay. Nuclear war seems likely. It's not even clear where the man and boy are heading, other than trying to escape winter's grasp and endure another day.

They meet other humans, but most of the time it's not a welcome occasion. With nothing able to grow, much of mankind has resorted to cannibalism for food. It's a zero-sum game whose only conclusion is humanity's extinction.

But among all this crushing bleakness, there is joy and tenderness that is exhilarating.

Robert Duvall and Charlize Theron have brief but powerful roles as, respectively, an ancient man they meet along the road and the wife and mother who deserted them, giving up all hope and abandoning them to her despair.

Extras are the same for both Blu-ray and DVD versions.

There is a making-of documentary and several deleted scenes, as well as a feature-length commentary track by Hillcoat.

I'm actually rather perturbed at how "The Road" was received. Its release was delayed for about a year, perhaps because in the then-new economic devastation, the studio rationalized that audiences wouldn't greet such a downbeat film with much enthusiasm.

Prove them wrong.

Movie: 3.5 stars out of four
Extras: 3 stars

Video review: "The Lord of the Rings" and "LOTR Trilogy"

The Lords are finally going Blu.

The "Lord of the Rings" movies are being issued on Blu-ray today. And I do mean all of them: The trilogy of 2001-03 films directed by Peter Jackson, which is being released as a single set, and the animated version directed by Ralph Bakshi in 1978.

The fates of those disparate attempts to bring J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasyland of hobbits, orcs and elves to cinematic life could not have been more diverse. Jackson's films set box office records and won a slew of Oscars, while Bakshi's version remains a punch line for serious Tolkienites, who dismiss it as a cartoon for kiddies.

Say what you will about Bakshi's much-maligned take, it looks great on a big TV in Blu-ray. The film itself hasn't improved with age; the cutesy depiction of Frodo and the other hobbits as big-haired moppets still grates. And the technique of "rotoscoping" -- filming live action and turning it into animation -- makes for jerky action scenes.

It doesn't help that the story abruptly stops about two-thirds of the way through Tolkien's novel. Bakshi intended the epic tale to be divided into two parts, but the studio refused to fund a sequel.

Jackson had about 70 times more money to play with than Bakshi did, and it shows. The story was split into three parts, just as publishers generally did with Tolkien's book.

But beyond production values, Jackson and his crew hew closer to Tolkien's vision in both plot and tone. They understood that they were translating an entire world into film -- and fans wanted it treated seriously.

The only downside of the LOTR Trilogy's arrival on Blu-ray (which had been delayed repeatedly) is that this set includes only the theatrical version of the films. The longer -- and better -- extended versions are expected to make their hi-def debut eventually, but no date is set.

Extras for the Bakshi version are limited to a single item: A 30-minute documentary covering Bakshi's career. There's some interesting behind-the-scenes photographs and footage from the "Rings" production, and interviews with Bakshi, his children and collaborators. But it mentions nothing about his intention to do a sequel, or the film's dismal reception, or other critical subjects.

The features for the LOTR trilogy closely mirror those of the extended DVD version, although the multiple commentary tracks are missing. It's an exhilarating and exhausting collection of hours' worth of interviews, features and documentaries. The nine-disc set also includes digital copies of each film.

Personally, I'll wait for the Blu-ray extended version.

Movies: Bakshi version: 2 stars; Jackson version: 4 stars
Extras: Bakshi: 1.5 stars; Jackson: 3.5 stars

DVD review: "Drag Me To Hell"

Your average popcorn-munching movie-goer probably only knows Sam Raimi as the director of the "Spider-Man" blockbusters. Hardcore horror fans realize that Raimi honed his filmmaking skills doing "wet work" with cheapie gross-out flicks like the "Evil Dead" series.

For this neglected latter group, his newest movie, "Drag Me to Hell," is like love letter and a bouquet of roses -- dripping in blood, that is.

Alison Lohman (who's 30 but looks 16) plays Christine Brown, a bank loan officer who gets hit with a nasty gypsy curse when she refuses to grant an extension on the foreclosure of a one-eyed old crone's (Lorna Raver) house.

Soon Christine is being haunted by shadowy tormenters who bust up her home and smack her around. In one nasty bit, a fly forces its way down her throat while she's asleep, only to reemerge at an inopportune time (still buzzing around) while she's lunching with her beau's (Justin Long) snooty parents.

Raimi (who also co-wrote the script with brother Ivan) blends the humorous and the horrendous to generally enjoyable effect, although there are times -- such as a big séance scene -- when the movie takes itself so seriously, you keep expecting hysterics to break out that never arrive.

Video extras are pretty skimpy. The DVD and Blu-ray both come with the theatrical and unrated version (which amps up the goo in several key scenes) and a 30-minute series of video diaries that touch on various elements of production. The most entertaining is learning how stunt coordinators rigged Lohman with a special nose tube for the scene where she spews blood all over her boss. (Who among us hasn't had that dream?)

The Blu-ray version also comes with a digital copy of the film for uploading to a portable video device.

I'll say this for "Drag Me to Hell": It has one of the coolest endings of any movie I've seen this year.

Movie: 2.5 stars
Extras: 1.5 stars

Time to go hi-def

This is my syndicated DVD column for this week. (I feel comfortable calling it "syndicated," since more than one newspaper now runs it.) It's not a review of a new video release like usual, but a meditation suggesting it's a good time to adopt Blu-ray.

Regular readers of this blog will note its similarity to a post I made about three weeks ago, which inspired this column.

No DVD review today, folks. It's a slow week for video releases -- "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" is about it, and here's my three-word review: Rent, don't buy.

Instead, I thought I'd use this week's column to talk about high-definition video. I recently took the step of upgrading to a Blu-ray player, and that will be reflected in the video reviews from here on. I also want to suggest that if you've been holding off on making the jump to the next generation of home video, recent developments suggest it's safe to come out now.

I don't blame anyone for hesitating to adopt new video technology, after the death of such formats as Betamax, laser disc, Divx and now HD DVD -- the competitor to Blu-ray that folded in early 2008 after nearly a two-year war for hi-def dominance.

The first thing you need to know is that your old DVDs aren't headed to the junkpile: Blu-ray is backward compatible. So you can upgrade your favorite titles to hi-def if you want, and keep the rest of your DVD library intact on your shelf.

Lately, the price and availability of Blu-ray players and movies has improved significantly. Brand-name players that cost $500 and up in 2006 can now be found in the $200-$250 range, with some basic machines as low as $150. Blockbuster, Netflix and other major video rental outlets are stocking more and more Blu-ray selections (1,000+ at Netflix).

If you want to buy, Blu-ray discs cost a little more than regular DVDs, but you can find plenty for under $20. Recently, Amazon ran a sale on popular titles for around $11.

The biggest factor in whether to upgrade is your television. If you don't have a hi-def set capable of 1080p resolution, you're not going to see much of an on-screen difference between Blu-ray and DVD (which has a resolution of 480).

If you're adventurous, you can opt for a Sony PlayStation 3 game console, which includes a Blu-ray player. My new PS3 Slim cost $300, so for a small premium over regular Blu-ray, I got gaming, too.

Stepping into the Blu

I've written extensively about next-generation video, particularly the battle between Blu-ray and HD DVD for supremacy. That war was decided more than 18 months ago, with Blu-ray the clear victor, but until now I've resisted adopting the format myself.

For awhile, the top reason was self-protection: I've been burned before as an early adopter of new technology. Just ask me about Commodore and Amiga computers, or the thousands of dollars I spent on laserdiscs. I was not about to be left with a library of films I could not watch anymore because my laserdisc player had broke, and you can't buy a replacement.

In the early going, Blu-ray players were not backward compatible with regular DVDs, unlike HD DVDs. But the Sony folks quickly realized that most people have at least a couple dozen DVDs sitting on their shelf, and don't like the idea of them becoming paperweights. So all the Blu-ray machines that have come out in the last couple of years can play DVDs. In fact, when I was looking at them in the store recently, I noticed the signage labels them as "Blu-ray and DVD players."

The other issue delaying purchase was price. Blu-ray players initially cost $500 and up, but have steadily come down in price. Just a few months ago, they still cost $300 or more. But the price has finally broken the $200 threshold, which is where I think you'll see a lot of people ready to make the jump. I've seen basic players for as little as $150, and even decent name-brand ones go for between $200-250.

Then Dylan, one of my two best and oldest friends, suggested I get a Sony PlayStation 3 instead. Now, I have not owned a game console literally since the Atari 2600. I still actively play games, but prefer the slower, more intellectually-bent kind that appeal to PC users like myself. I gave up World of Warcraft a few months ago, and have been piddling around with Left 4 Dead and Fallout 3 since then.

The appeal of the PS3 is that it includes a built-in Blu-ray player. So I ended up doing lot of research to see if I really could hook one up to my home theater system and essentially replace my DVD player, while adding the gaming feature as a bonus.

Short version: Absolutely.

In the end, I ended up getting the PS3 Slim, the newest generation of the PlayStation that just came out, with the help of some birthday money from Dylan. It costs $300, so basically for a premium of $50 or $75, you're buying a Blu-ray player and getting gaming on top.

I'm pretty impressed with the Slim. It has built-in Wi-Fi, so I can connect to the online gaming network, browse the Internet, etc. I also really liked that it has a digital optical output, which is necessary to get Dolby Digital DTS sound. I put in a DVD last night, cranked up my system, and it sounded great. (I love seeing the little orange "DTS" symbol light up on my receiver.)

The one wrinkle in hooking it up was my television, which is about six years old now. It does not have HDMI inputs (the new highest standard), but the older YPR component jacks. I did have to shell out an extra 20 backs for a PlayStation adapter that would connect to my TV.

I'm still testing the unit out -- I did buy one cheap collection of games, the Orange Box, but haven't even had a chance to try it out yet.

I will confess that I feel like a Jurassic-era gamer handling these new game controllers, with their strange, ergonomic shape and assortment of buttons and thumb controls. My idea of a controller is a black rubber joystick and one rubber button. I feel like a cave man confronted with a steam engine.

Perhaps later today I'll go rent a Blu-ray movie, maybe one I already have on DVD, so I can test out the quality difference. I don't think it'll be as stark an improvement as people say, but for now I'm pretty happy with my step into Blu.

UPDATE: I went out and rented "Iron Man" on BR, since I have the DVD in my library and could pop one in after another to compare. As expected, it looks better, but it's not mind-blowing. Although I should point out that my older set is only capable of 1080i resolution, not 1080p. (If you'd don't know the difference, you can find out here.)

Blu-ray discs do seem to come with a lot more features; for example, a digital copy of the film to put on your iPod or other mobile device is almost standard on BR, although more DVDs are including it, too.

I didn't rent any games, although there was a decent selection at the local Blockbuster. They do want quite a lot to rent them though -- something like 15 percent of the purchase price. I guess it's a good way to check out a game before plunking down upwards of $60 to own it.

On Blu-ray and downloading videos

I had planned to follow my Christmas tradition of buying myself a nice present during the after-Christmas sales, and finally break down and get a Blu-ray video player. Obviously, we're being pretty tight with our money now, so that idea is out the window for the time being.

I've always been an early adopter of video technology. I bought a laser-disc player back in the 1980s, when less than 2 percent of homes had one. The first digital video format was not a bad one, although the discs were expensive ($40-$50 each) and you had to flip them once or more during a typical length movie.

Then I bought a DVD player in 1999, just a few months after they came out, even though they were overpriced -- I think mine was $500.

But I resisted investing in the next generation of video until the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD was resolved. I didn't want to be stuck with hundreds of dollars worth of obsolete discs. For example, just before moving to Indiana in 2005, I sold all my laserdiscs on Ebay, typically getting just a few pennies on the dollar for what I paid for them.

But even when HD DVD suddenly folded nearly a year ago, I've hesitated to jump on Blu-ray. Part was the expense, with even discounted players going for $300 and up, and discs typically priced at about a 50 percent markup from regular DVDs. But I kept reading (and as a reporter, writing) about how the industry people think that the next big jump is going to be to downloading video.

I still don't buy that argument, for several reasons.

First of all, unless you're content to have a low-res version of the movie that only looks good on a two- or three-inch screen, it takes a honking long time to download a movie -- several hours, in most cases. Yes, it's cool to travel on a plane and watch a movie on your little MP3 player. But I think most serious videophiles feel that if they're going to own a movie permanently, they want to be able to watch it on the biggest screen and with the best sound possible. And the download speeds aren't a function of technology, but a limitation of the nationwide high-speed cable system. You would have to effectively rip the whole thing up and start over. So download times aren't going to decrease significantly any time soon.

Second, virtually everyone has experienced the tragedy of having a computer hard disk fried or dropping their iPhone into a toilet. If all your movies are stored digitially, there's a greater chance of them being lost permanently than with a physical object like a DVD. How would like to have bought a bunch of movies from the iTunes store for $12-$15 each, and then a lightning strike renders them null and void?

Third, most folks just like having the physical object -- they can display it on a bookshelf, admire the cover art, and take them with them wherever they go. "Hey, it's movie night at Bernie's. What are we watching?" "I dunno, just grab a bunch of DVDs and we'll choose." There's more of a psychological sense of ownership with something you can touch.

Fourth, storage space on even huge disk drives can be filled up quickly with digital copies of movies. Even the low-res flicks I've rented from iTunes take up about one gigabyte each. A high-def version is more like seven or eight gigs. I have about 250 DVDs in my collection; how much do you think a two terabyte drive would cost me -- about the size of a typical academic research library?

I believe that Blu-ray will eventually become the new video standard once the price on players and discs drops a bit more. Especially since regular DVDs will play on them, so there's no need to replace your current collection.