Widescreen version (notice the boxcar latch on the door to the right). ~The whole, intentional, visual presentation for you. |  Pan & Scan. Sure the close-up of faces is more dramatic, per se, yet much of the picture is lost. |
|
What to say about this film? "Starman" tells the tale about a shipwrecked alien that lands in the midwest, rural area. The alien appears as a light and needs a body to get to "Arizona-Maybe" where it will get picked up by it's mother ship. Close by the wreckage, and across the lake, it picks its host from a lock of hair from a young widow's home, utilizes the genes/ DNA in the cells and voila! It's Jeff Bridges...err...uh....human! The young widow has stayed up that night, nostalgic for her husband (who is now physically reincarnated by the terrestrial!), and she has fallen asleep in the living room. Wait'll she gets a load of this!
Black humor aside, "Starman" breathes as a hearty and satifying film that stands on it's own as a sci-fi/ love story/ road movie. We care about the characters and root for them to reach their, albeit strange, goal. Jeff Bridges acted so believeably, he was nominated for an Academy Award for his role. Karen Allen seemed to never get much credit for her role. Perhaps because she seemed so natural. Allen breathed soul into her role touchingly with her unique combination of earthy comedy & moments of haulting, haunting resonance. Though she always reminded me of Annie from "Friday the 13th." She and Bridges share easy chemistry, and without that, the film would've been flat. The film was directed by John Carpenter. His attention to poignant, human scenes & beautiful appreciation for landscape photography are keen with much of his previous work...outlaws makin love on a runnaway train has never looked so sweet.... |
|
Picture
"Starman" is presented in it's (typical Carpenter) aspect ratio of 2.35:1 in anamorphic widescreen. The flip is pan & scan and literally chops half of the film off to fit your 4:3 TV. See the widescreen version. Detail is better than ever with DVD's presentation. It's amazing. Even Karen Allen's freckles can't hide behind make-up with the DVD's high resolution. Red's don't bleed. The print is quite pristine and a huge improvement, blacks rarely take a vote when looking to be solid or faded (night shots suffer a bit). Typically colors and images were quite stable & rather realistic. The extended effort (& $$) of creating an anamorphic transfer by Columbia Pictures is a beaute (bravo, Columbia!!!), and the film hasn't looked better. Any fan of this film will be quite pleased. |
|
Sound
Audio is presented in a somewhat limited though clear Dolby 2.0, especially since the soundtrack was originally 6 track (like "Alien"). So what's the deal? It seems consistently the case that 1980s vintiage, non-remixed, Columbia DVDs present DVD audio sadly inferior to their previous laserdisc predescessors ("Labrynth," "Fright Night"). Though I haven't compared "Starman's" LD vs DVD on audio directly, I suspicion this the case, yet just don't know. If anyone does, please leave a message on the board. Bass is present, but usually doesn't shake the rafters. Otherwise, the sound seems acceptably anchored with dialogue sounding natural enough and a believeable soundstage with nice, though not full, imaging. The surrounds are active mostly during supernatural sequences, the haunting score and other arousing action (<--keep your mind in check now!). On occasion, the surrounds are extremely aggressive, yet obviously mono, therefore, missing a stronger sense of space than was intended. Otherwise, atmospheric sounds are almost `nill (pump `em up, baby!...though I think I remember some crickets.). A DD 5.1 should have been made in accordance with the original 6 track Dolby! Oh well. Further, I think it's well worth noting that Ridley Scott, during his audio commentary for "Alien" (specifically for the 1999 release of "Alien" (1979) DVD) was VERY proud & exclaimed of the fact that Fox had remixed his "Alien" film to Dolby Digital 5.1 (especially during the landing scene near the beginning of the Nostromo). Perhaps the lack of "Starman's" remix to DD 5.1 was degraded film audio elements [caused by a studio's sloppy, fucked-up storage of the film]. (Man, can I whine about sound or what?!!!) The lack of audio commentary could've been an added a effect from the lack of proper remix. Do you think Carpenter would be happy about the lack of his full score on the more than capable DVD? But obviously that's just speculation. |
|
Extras & overalls
Not many extras. Just a cheesy, nonanamorphic trailer that looks like it got ran over a few times by a Hummer on the LA Highways. Ans some production notes. It's reported that this film went through different directors' hands, and almost didn't get made. Surely, an audio commentary would've put many rumors to rest. And since John Carpenter has done many audio commentaries (bravo!) to his films it's sad that one for "Starman" was never done, as I'm sure there was much to say. |
|
Overalls
This film usually takes your heart or could leave you bored. Perhaps not much in between. And while it covers many dramatic elements of a storyline (regular person in extraordinary instances, love story, sci-fi, action, road movie, character's history relevant to the story, goals and a climax), the film remains unique, acted quite well, and ranks up there to be many a filmphiles' favorite. The sound could've surely benefitted from a 5.1 remix, as could've more extras but, oh well. Yet a beautiful print of "Starman" is presented, colors are solid, vibrant at times & fans should be well pleased with this presentation in anamorphic widescreen, as "Starman" has truly never looked better as of this writing.... |
