Disclosure
(1994)/9½ Weeks (Uncut/1986)/Striptease (1996/Warner Blu-rays)/The Sitter (2011/Fox Blu-ray w/DVD)
Picture: B/B-/B-/B-
& C Sound: B/B-/B/B- & C+ Extras: C-/C-/C-/D Films: C/C+/C-/D
Here are
some films that should have worked better than they did, even with one being a
hit of sorts.
When
Barry Levinson directed Disclosure
(1994) from the Michael Crichton novel, it had some buzz at the time since
Levinson was a big director, co-star Michael Douglas had done so many sexually
charged thrillers that it was assumed this would be intense, that he would be
the victim of sexual harassment a role-reversal (especially for those who
thought he was more a victimizer in Fatal
Attraction (reviewed elsewhere on this site) than not), that Demi Moore
would do the harassing and that at least the sex scenes would be talked about
for years to come.
Unfortunately,
despite a few interesting moments including a howler from early cyberspace that
jolted the audience at the time, the film has aged very badly, looks more like
the package deal it unfortunately turned out to be and did not really help the
careers of anyone involved. I had high
expectations when I first saw it and was disappointed. This new Blu-ray edition transported me back
to those long, lost 131 minutes. Donald
Sutherland, Caroline Goddall and then-briefly actor Dennis Miller (yes, the
comedian with the weird history) add to the oddness. You might want to see this one once if you
never saw it, but that will be enough. A
trailer is the only extra.
Adrian
Lyne was on his way to doing Fatal
Attraction, but just before that (and after the hit success of Flashdance)
made 9½ Weeks (1986) with Mickey
Rourke and Kim Basinger. With its New
Wave/Music Video look, it sold itself as a film about “hot sex” but it was more
about dumb filmmaking and dumb moments with only some erotic moments that rung
true. Some moments were silly, most
stupid and a few interesting. 26 years
later, seen in this uncut version, more than half of anything here is because
of the sexuality, attractiveness and chemistry of its stars, who were two of
the hottest actors in the business at the time.
Ironically,
Rourke was considered “the real actor” (which was true) and Basinger “the
sexpot” (which was also true, but meant as if she had no acting talent), yet
she was always underrated as an actor at her best and is now the one with an
Academy Award. That made it seem she was
being even more used and the film more sexist at the time, but this was enough
of a hit to inspire a lame sequel and several imitators. I also thought the mix of music was
interesting, if not great, and New
York City locales not bad. However, this is more of a relic of the past
than a successful piece of cinema and Lyne proved that his extrapolations of
Kubrick were not as successful or enduring as Ridley or Tony Scott.
This even
looked a little fresher at the time, but plays more like a time capsule of the
time, of sexual oppression in the Reagan Years and was made at a slightly more
innocent time when some sexual ideas and images were not as underground (the
Internet has made eroticism a free-for-all joke) so it is a curio for several
reasons. I did not get any surprises out
of it, though it reminded me of Rourke being on a role at MGM/UA (the studio that
made the film, now owned by Warner through their Turner Entertainment
acquisition) and along with Pope Of
Greenwich Village and the highly underrated and even more imitated Year Of The Dragon (reviewed elsewhere
on this site) a trilogy of hits that was the peak of his early acting years.
The late
(and one time actor) Zalman King co-wrote the script and was the biggest
beneficiary, doing lame would-be erotic goofiness for the rest of his
career. Of course, most of the cats is
white and when we get a prominent minority, it is a Hispanic (and possibly
African American, or at least an “exotic” signified partly as one) hooker with
an angry disposition who comes out of nowhere.
Such racism plagued several of Lyne’s other films, so he should not be
surprised his career ended sooner than expected. A trailer is the only extra.
Andrew
Bergman is a good writer and sometimes director who tries to do comedies, but Striptease (1996) is the biggest
package deal here, with Warner once again trying to get a breakthrough hit out
of Demi Moore’s later career and one of several attempts (along with the Dukes Of Hazard resuscitation and
Sylvester Stallone bomb Driven,
directed by Rennie Harlin) a comeback supporting role for Burt Reynolds that
did not do the trick.
Moore is a stripper who is a mother,
sexy and wants to have a better life, but this comedy is such a lame-brained
package deal that it was an embarrassing bomb and many thought the book by Carl
Hiaasen was trashed badly to make it a comedy for the worst possible
reasons. If not for Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls coming out after and being
more horrid and more entertaining for all the wrong reasons, this would still
be talked about more for the bomb that it is.
Armond Assante, Ving Rhames and Robert Patrick are also wasted
here. A trailer is the only extra.
So after
all those failures, you would think Hollywood
would learn from its mistakes and not make bad films, especially bad
comedies. Jonah Hill has turned out to
be a good dramatic actor, but established himself in comedy, so you think he
would not botch one he is the star of.
However, the very aptly dubbed “Totally Irresponsible Edition” of the
solid director David Gordon Green’s The
Sitter (2011) is such a bomb that it manages to be the worst film here and
the nadir of the careers of all involved.
Starting
with a oral sex scene of sorts that is unfunny, setting the tone for the uncut
and edited/theatrical versions that are both virtually disastrous, the script
is really a very, very, very bad set of every childish sex and gross joke and
situation you can stuff into 81 long, long minutes and then try to had
something resembling a storyline as you make young children look really bad and
adults as bad. This could have been a
riot if handled properly, but is perpetually pointless and awful. How did this get made and released? I was stunned and since Hill and Green
supposedly like 1970s films, you think they would no better. I hope Green does better next time, because
this is way, way below his talents. At
least Hill did Moneyball the same
year.
Extras
include Digital Copy for PC and PC portable devices, Gag Reel, Extended Scenes,
pointless Alternate Ending, rightly Deleted Scenes and four lame featurettes.
The 1080p
2.35 X 1 digital High Definition image on Disclosure
is surprisingly the best looking of the four releases with good detail and
depth for a recent film of its age.
Warner wanted this to look good and the money is on the screen, even if
the script was not able to support it.
This looks pretty much like the 35mm presentation I saw at the time and
fans will be pleasantly surprised. The
1080p 1.85 X 1 digital High Definition image on Weeks (with more grain than you might expect, partly due to the way
dark scenes were shot), Striptease
and 1080p 1.85 X 1 AVC @ 30 MBPS digital High Definition image transfer on Sitter (the one that should look the
best) all have their flaws and limits. Striptease also looks like an older HD
master and Weeks definitely is, but Sitter
is surprisingly bad with color limits and motion blur more often than any film
today should have. Its anamorphically
enhanced DVD version is much, much weaker and only here for convenience.
DTS-HD MA
(Master Audio) 5.1 lossless mixes are on all four Blu-rays, with Disclosure and Striptease the sonic winners (both 5.1 digital releases
theatrically in their time) and just fine here with solid soundfields
throughout. Weeks was originally a Dolby A-type analog theatrical release, so
this audio upgrade shows many flaws and that includes in the music which could
sound better. Warner and Lyne should
redo the sound for any future special edition with more extras and that means
using the original audio steams (hope they were not trashed) and better copies
of the songs. That leaves Sitter the surprise looser with bad
recording and mixing throughout, too much of its soundfield towards the front
speakers and just a substandard presentation throughout, made worse on the DVD
version with its lesser, lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 mix.
- Nicholas Sheffo
