Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Boxoffice Magazine's DVD "Reviews"

This is topic Boxoffice Magazine's DVD "Reviews" in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000291

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-20-2004, 03:08 PM:

Does anyone read the DVD "Reviews" section on Boxoffice Magazine's online edition? One would think (or hope) that a trade publication would strive for a little more accuracy, but it's pretty clear that reviewer Wade Major doesn't actually look at these films beyond studying the covers (if even that).

Some examples:

Hello, Dolly:

"What disappoints about the DVD is the audio -- the monophonic mix is certainly good enough to enjoy the movie and far superior to what casually passes on television, but it's not nearly up to snuff with comparable work being done on older musicals by the likes of Warner Bros. Fortunately, Streisand's voice shines in mono, as does the immortal rasp of Louis Armstrong, whose rendition of the title song is among the most memorable of any song in movie history."

Wrong: The soundtrack on the DVD is 4.0 (l-c-r-s) although not the same mix as I heard in the theatre last year. Major must have glanced at the Spanish and French MONO boxes on the back of the DVD by mistake, although even the English box incorrectly indicates 2ch stereo.

Sweet Charity:

"**1/2 (Audio: B+, Video: B+, Features: F+)
The virtually extra-less DVD..."

Wrong! Sweet Charity has a number of extras. They're just not listed on the box. If Mr. Major had only taken the time to pop the DVD into his player, he would have noticed that an alternate "happy" ending is included, as well as two "making of" featurettes and a preview used for the reserved seat 70mm engagements.

The Greatest Show On Earth:

"The DVD of the black-and-white film lacks extras but features fine Paramount transfer quality in both audio and picture."

Wrong! Shot in glorious 3-strip Technicolor. I haven't seen the DVD box of this title yet, but I'm wondering now if it has a misprint stating b&w.

And while the following can't be attributed to mis-reading a DVD cover:

Star:

"This beautiful anamorphic DVD, which very effectively captures the roadshow glory of the original 70mm Cinemascope print."

Wrong: The film was roadshowed in 70mm Todd-AO. 70mm Cinemascope is a term that would indicate a 35mm to 70mm blow-up, and Star! originated on 65mm film.

[ 04-21-2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Paul Linfesty ]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-20-2004, 03:48 PM:

That's why I gave up my subscription to Box Office magazine about 10 years ago. They kept on screwing up details. So I see somethings don't change.

The only good DVD reviews I like come from Widescreen Review. They have all the facts and details. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 04-20-2004, 04:51 PM:

Why is a MOVIE THEATRE trade publication reviewing HOME DVDs anyway?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-03-2004, 06:59 PM:

Must only be in the online edition. I haven't spotted any DVD reviews in the mag.