tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post591175412085475212..comments2024-03-24T13:26:57.317-07:00Comments on Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule: FALLOUT FROM THE OFC TOP 100 LISTDennis Cozzaliohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-78728875831973797422007-10-10T07:29:00.000-07:002007-10-10T07:29:00.000-07:00Die Hard is DEFINITELY the greatest movie of all t...Die Hard is DEFINITELY the greatest movie of all time!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-67739451004732637242007-08-28T20:51:00.000-07:002007-08-28T20:51:00.000-07:00I hope you don't mind but now that you have a spec...I hope you don't mind but now that you have a specific article on this subject I have copied my comment from your other entry and am putting it here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-84748726895272164012007-08-17T22:28:00.000-07:002007-08-17T22:28:00.000-07:00without reading everything and all comments from a...without reading everything and all comments from above I get the idea that most people do not mind what is being said in the first place but in the second place it really does matter what is being said. you know<BR/><BR/>Now some shameless plugs:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Computer networking experts in Cisco Voip, Cisco Call center, unity, Vmware Hosted solutions from <BR/>VOIP, MSoffice, QuickBooks, mas90, great plains, Solomon, online offsite backups and more<BR/><BR/><B>call for info<BR/>888-603-6333 x89<BR/>Scott</B> <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.intercore.net/outsourcing/computer_networking/" REL="nofollow">networking services networking support</A> <A HREF="http://www.avidware.com/" REL="nofollow">Network Installation</A> <A HREF="http://www.avidware.com/cisco/" REL="nofollow">cisco support</A><A HREF="http://www.avidware.com/novell/" REL="nofollow">novell support</A> <A HREF="http://www.avidware.com/voip" REL="nofollow">voip support</A><A HREF="http://www.avidware.com/hosted/virtual-office-services.html" REL="nofollow">virtual office support</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.computer-los-angeles.com/" REL="nofollow">tech support</A> <A HREF="http://www.avidware.net/" REL="nofollow">exchange server migration to exchange</A> <A HREF="http://www.colocationamerica.com/" REL="nofollow">Colocation Hosting Services</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-29459962949508510642007-08-15T00:53:00.000-07:002007-08-15T00:53:00.000-07:00Without reading ALL of the comments, I get an idea...Without reading ALL of the comments, I get an idea of the "fallout" mentioned in the title.<BR/><BR/>As the guy who helped develop the list and tally the votes, etc, I think the flaw in the list lies here:<BR/><BR/>We did not give any criteria as to what this list is supposed to be. We just said simply to the voters, "whatever you think should be on a Top 100 list, vote for it." That was our mistake; because after reading that sentence, some people put their list in for what they thought are the "best" films of all time (as the snobs on here pointed out, "400 Blows, Bicycle Thief, or even Bonnie and Clyde or McCabe and Mrs Miller) while others put the 100 movies they would want with them if stranded on a desert island. You see the dilemma there.<BR/><BR/>You have to understand that this was a fun experiment that got rushed through because we were excited about it and we didn't think of all the implications at the time.<BR/><BR/>If I were to go back and do it all over again, I would tell voters either A) vote for your top 100 FAVORITE films, or vote for the top 100 films you think are the BEST. Obviously those would be two very different lists.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for not seeing everything. No, I hadn't seen everything on the nominees list of over 500 films and I bet none of the voters (or even anyone who has commented on this blog has either) have either. But I think we took a large enough sampling of people that it was close enough to accurately reflect the overall opinion of the films in question. maybe I'm totally wrong about that, but I thinki enough of us have seen The 400 Blows to make it higher on the list if we had had CRITERIA; but we didn't.<BR/><BR/>It's 3am and I must sleep now.<BR/>Cheers.<BR/><BR/>~Andrew James (Olson)<BR/><A HREF="http://moviepatron.com" REL="nofollow">MoviePatron.com</A>drewbaccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13736443842128491704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-36752087326226982742007-08-13T17:26:00.000-07:002007-08-13T17:26:00.000-07:00Here's my solution: two lists.One for pre-1970 mov...Here's my solution: two lists.<BR/><BR/>One for pre-1970 movies, the other for post-1970 movies.<BR/><BR/>And I'm sorry but putting DIE HARD on a list of Greatest Films of All Time is a sad joke. It may be a "great action movie" but there are "great lesbian porn movies", too. So what? If you think the standards are vague, then try to imagine what a reasonable standard might be (hint: it won't be how hard it made you while you watched).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-89121362111340753662007-08-08T15:30:00.000-07:002007-08-08T15:30:00.000-07:00I have to admit that I read the list with utter di...I have to admit that I read the list with utter dismay. That it skewed modern I could have dealt with, had it been more adventurous. This was uncomfortably close to the IMDB Top 500, which I cannot read without having to go lie down in a dark room with a cold cloth on my forehead. Then again, I would have enjoyed being asked to help compile it. Oh well. Still, the list is quite aggressively, almost cartoonishly young-man in its composition. <BR/><BR/>The poster who speculates that each critic listed action and canonical 70s choices, and then added a few quirkier choices, is probably spot on. The DVD dearth also must be a factor. Here's another problem: the death of the late-late show. Yes, yes, it is dreary to see movies bisected by commercials and scanned and panned. No one adores TCM more than I, but a hell of a lot of people don't get the channel. The ability to see a really old movie on your basic or basic-plus cable package is pretty much gone. And that is a shame. Sure, I saw some landmark movies on the Superstation's Academy Award Theatre. And then when I had the chance to see them on a big screen, I grabbed it. Who knows if I would have turned out to be a cinephile without years of discovering film history this way? The TV showings helped form my tastes. It's a damned shame that they don't exist anymore, crappy editing or no.The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-13075211530113867682007-08-05T13:40:00.000-07:002007-08-05T13:40:00.000-07:00Well, Dennis, I must say it's good to see you get ...Well, Dennis, I must say it's good to see you get so fired up now and then! I, of course, am one of the "old farts," I guess, all things being relative, and I confess to being somewhat snobby about movies, but then I also liked SHAWSHANK when I first saw it quite a lot. I've always found these "Top 100" lists of anything pointless and enervating; years ago I remember refusing to renew a subscription to ROLLING STONE magazine because I was so tired of reading their endless top-100-so-and-sos, even when they begged and practically paid me to re-subscribe.<BR/><BR/>I seem to remember Pauline Kael saying something (maybe in that lecture I attended at UCLA), when asked about why younger people thought some flashy thing that came out last year was not only brilliant but One of the Greatest Films Ever Made, that they simply hadn't seen as many movies as you or I have. I don't mean to quote or misquote her, but that's the essence of what I remember her saying, and I liked its simple, don't-worry-about-it quality. I know you're talking about people who write about film online, but still...maybe this discussion will encourage some of them to watch more adventurously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-17323615256180973352007-08-04T23:36:00.000-07:002007-08-04T23:36:00.000-07:00For a list of this kind, where obviously they ende...For a list of this kind, where obviously they ended up with some embarrassing inclusions, one possible solution would have been to give people both positive negative votes. I.e. in the second round or in an added third round voters could chosen 10 or 20 films they *didn't* want to see on the final list. <BR/><BR/>Alternatively, they could have asked voters to indicate which of the final 502 films they'd actually seen, and instead of raw vote totals use the ratio of votes for each film to the number of voters who'd seen the film.<BR/><BR/>As a last alternative note that if you just throw out everything after 1990, you lose a couple of good things like Fargo and Pulp Fiction but you also lose almost 100% of the real dreck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-91522175393089519742007-08-04T19:41:00.000-07:002007-08-04T19:41:00.000-07:00scream queen -i'm guessing those obits are referri...scream queen -<BR/><BR/>i'm guessing those obits are referring to Antonioni as modernist because they identify his work as part of the modernist movement in art, culture and thought... not because he was "modern", as in "recent".<BR/><BR/>" Isn’t a lot of the so-called auteur stuff from the late 50s up until the mid-70s barely watchable today, for all its pretension, ist holy seriousness, its hamfisted political and sociological sloganeering, its intellectual „depth“ which today rings less deep than hollow?"<BR/><BR/>A: No ...? Care to name names? Because from my chair, it sounds like you're describing SHAWSHANK and AMISTAD and CRASH.<BR/><BR/>If this turns into a game of Snobs versus Slobs, I gladly take the side that cares enough about the subject of film to spend time knee-deep in its history, actually studying, reading, watching and thinking. Being willfully uneducated and refusing to explore and probe the field in which one is claiming some expertise, if that is what has happened with the OFC list, is not a unique perspective, it's not a virtue.<BR/><BR/>But my guess is that the math screwed / skewed the results.Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-86883597026745873122007-08-04T17:39:00.000-07:002007-08-04T17:39:00.000-07:00Moviezzz,That's not a bad idea. Compile a list of...Moviezzz,<BR/><BR/>That's not a bad idea. Compile a list of the best English-Language and then compile a separate list of the best non-English-Language and combine the two. That is to say if the number one English language film got 37 votes and the number one foreign language film got 36 votes then on the combined list they are numbers one and two. The Sight and Sound poll compiles a list by critics and a list by directors which I wrote about here: http://cinemastyles.blogspot.com/2007/07/directors-commentary-sight-and-sound.html<BR/>Personally I think the Sight and Sound poll is still the best combining the popular (Casablanca, Godfather, etc.) with the artistic (Le Mepris, Pather Panchali). <BR/><BR/>By combining two separate lists the online community would probably produce much broader far reaching results.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-42375127877714843662007-08-04T13:55:00.000-07:002007-08-04T13:55:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TALKING MOVIEzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11621046844665110326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-56289274677032663432007-08-04T11:12:00.000-07:002007-08-04T11:12:00.000-07:00If you want to get really depressed, I just saw th...If you want to get really depressed, I just saw the new IMDb poll. On the top of the list to name the favorite Ingmar Bergman film at 46 percent is the admission of people that they have never seen a Bergman film.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-72427918616706610242007-08-04T00:46:00.000-07:002007-08-04T00:46:00.000-07:00Reading all these comments (and, at least in part,...Reading all these comments (and, at least in part, rather snobbish rants), I kind of feel like I ended up on a rollingstone.com forum of nostalgic old farts discussing a "100 best albums of all time" list which, to their endless dismay, does not feature "Exile on Main Street", "Pet Sounds" and "Sgt. Pepper" as the top three records ever made, 'cause, as we (over 40) all know, there hasn't been any decent pop music since the hey day of the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Stones (which is not only a ridiculous notion but also a proof of utter ignorance). I mean, what did you folks expect from a "100 best" list (which, imho, is a fairly absurd enterprise to begin with)? Just another canonic roster of the usual suspects starting with "Citizen Kane" and "Battleship Potemkin" at the top and working its way down to, say, some rarely-seen Ozu or Bresson effort in the 100 spot? Nothing could be more boring, could it, not least because there already ARE hundreds of such lists out there, so why make another one? <BR/><BR/>Brian mentioned he would have liked to see a list of "off-the-beaten-path selections". Well, isn't that exactly what you got? Because who in their right mind would place a half-baked piece of kiddie fodder like "Star Wars" - which didn't do much for me when I was 12 and would probably bore me to tears today - in their top 20 (or top 200, for that matter)? Then again, in its own way, it was certainly just as influential as "Citizen Kane", a fact which would at least make it an "important" film by the standards applied around here. <BR/><BR/>Which brings me to the most crucial problem with an undertaking such as this. What the hell are the criteria? Historical significance? "Intellectual" content? "Deep" characterization? Oustanding achievements in style and technique?<BR/><BR/>For instance, "Citizen Kane" is, no doubt, a great movie, but it is a) a special effects film relying heavily on technical wizardry, b) directed in an unabashedly show-off style, and c) somewhat short in characterization (which is why I, like one of my predecessors on this board, always found it strangely uninvolving and, as for Welles, prefer "The Magnificent Ambersons" even in its truncated form). Don't all of the above criteria also apply to, say, "The Matrix" - which does raise a few philosophical questions, so it's not ALL style over content? <BR/><BR/>And why is style held in such disdain? (In literature, btw, it's exactly the other way round.) Why is something like "Die Hard" unworthy of being on a "best 100" list (I wouldn't have included it, mind you, although I do like it a lot)? Because it's an action picture, an exercise in style? Well, it certainly is no "Persona". It doesn't want to be that, either, and I doubt that McTiernan could make anything halfway Bergmanesque at all. Then again, Bergman certainly couldn't have shot a decent action picture (not that he would've wanted to, and I do know that Bergman is a silly example, but what the heck). So how could these two films possibly be compared, and why is one better than the other? After all, both of them are prime examples of their respective genres (now, you might say that Bergman is a genre in itself, but let's forget that for the sake of argument), with both directors in top form. <BR/><BR/>So what are the criteria? And why have so many „white American males under 30“ who, allegedly, make up the best part of the voting OFC, not seen, or been able to appreciate, all the masterpieces of the past? After all, most of them are readily available on DVD? Because they’re all just too stupid, spoiled by cheap, sugary Hollywood popcorn fare? (My God, you Americans do have an inferiority complex when it comes to art, don’t you? ;)) Couldn’t it be that a lot of so-called classics are hopelessly dated – which doesn’t mean they weren‘t fine at the time, but, quite naturally, haven’t aged that well – and, every so often, an ordeal to sit through? Or that some of the directors who were so „modern“ at the time (a term I came across a lot in Antonioni obits this past week) were merely à la mode in retrospect? Which doesn’t mean they don’t have their merits. Antonioni or, say, Godard have been highly influential and totally deserving of their reputations as forerunners and trail blazers, a lot of their stuff has been and is still being quoted, culled and copied by many a contemporary filmmaker, but does that make their films masterpieces, simply for their „revolutionary“ use of framing, editing techniques and narrative devices? (Geez, each and every run-of-the-mill Michael Bay disaster features some wild editing that would put any experimental filmmaker to shame, but does that make it a great example of cinematic art? I doubt it.) Isn’t a lot of the so-called auteur stuff from the late 50s up until the mid-70s barely watchable today, for all its pretension, ist holy seriousness, its hamfisted political and sociological sloganeering, its intellectual „depth“ which today rings less deep than hollow? In other words, can a work of art actually be seen and evaluated historically? Or aren’t we merely able to see it in its historical context, from a contemporary viewpoint, sometimes giving it a weight measured by its influence rather than ist actual artistic value? In short: shouldn’t a canon – and, let‘s face it, that’s what this is about – and the criteria by which it‘s being put together be reevaluated once in a while? Otherwise, it would be little more than a reactionary manifest to the eternal truth as chiselled in stone ca. 1976. And that can’t possibly be the answer, can it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-63680997713760455532007-08-03T21:58:00.000-07:002007-08-03T21:58:00.000-07:00I'll see your Bob le flambeur and Pierrot le fou (...I'll see your Bob le flambeur and Pierrot le fou (I hope, someday) and raise you -- the online film community's #1 film! (I've never really been into mafia movies -- guess I should rectify that though, huh?).<BR/><BR/>I don't pretend to have a large background in film, although I feel like I've seen quite a few. But fully a quarter of the OFC's list I have not seen, and that's of a fairly populist list. I've seen a lot of older films, but I suppose like many moderate film nuts, I've never taken a systematic approach to increasing my film repertoire. And pretty much anything that looks a little imposing (odd- or dark-looking foreign films, David Lynch, etc.) I've tended to steer away from. So I've seen no Bergman, or Antonioni, or Besson. Another part of it, I suppose, is that I tend to watch things that my friends want to watch as well. Not that my friends all hate Bergman and such -- but in some cases they've seen them and aren't interested in another viewing, and would prefer to see something new. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even for someone who loves film, it often involves going out of your way to see a lot of older, classic films that aren't on the new releases shelf (or even getting a group of people to go out of their way at the same time).<BR/><BR/>Ah well, maybe I'll go put on Mulholland Dr. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-44074602308070805822007-08-03T21:15:00.000-07:002007-08-03T21:15:00.000-07:00The BFI R2 DVD PARIS NOUS APPARTIENT is very clean...The BFI R2 DVD PARIS NOUS APPARTIENT is very clean and beautiful, and includes a Rivette short. I'd only seen it in 16mm and on goopy-looking library Betamax; the DVD is essential, and frankly, given that they don't cost any more than R1 players, an all-region player is a lifesaver.<BR/><BR/>A lot of key European art cinema, seems obvious eventual Criterion fodder, but, uh, why wait? ALL those Tartan Bergmans could have been yours years before they ever got American spine numbers! To say nothing of those Russ Meyer discs...Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-23644027614535274132007-08-03T21:09:00.000-07:002007-08-03T21:09:00.000-07:00Having spent nearly ten years discussing films in ...Having spent nearly ten years discussing films in various online fora, I had a feeling that a list like this would be the result of this project. Perhaps I shouldn't even jump into the conversation because I declined to participate, but honestly I don't think my entry would have made much of a dent in the results on its own. Any film that could have passed the "3-vote" threshold because of my additional placing of it, would probably not have been widely-seen enough to make the final 100, with such a large group of voters. I'd be curious to learn which of these titles had the fewest nominations in the first round. <BR/><BR/>In my experience, it's nigh impossible to create a consensus poll in which the results are full of interesting, off-the-beaten-path selections in the final results. Even the Sight and Sound poll, which every ten years combs the globe for the most cinema-literate critics and filmmakers, has for the past few decades had a relatively predictable top ten. <BR/><BR/>I think Bob Turnbull is right on in attributing this to vote-splitting. I don't blame the submitters of the lists themselves, as much as the mechanism for compiling the results. Perhaps if every voter (or nearly every voter) went into the project thinking of their choices not as the "best" or "favorite" films, but the "most criminally underexposed" films you might get a relatively interesting result. But even that is a pretty subjective criteria; from some perspectives, <B><I>Heat</I></B> or <I><B>Leon</B></I> could be called "underexposed" (I for one haven't seen them yet, unlike the other 98.) <BR/><BR/>The Cinema Fusion poll results are in many ways similar to the <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/chart/top" REL="nofollow">imdb's top 100 movies</A> or the <A HREF="http://www.shompy.com/top-movies/index_ukuk.html" REL="nofollow">ymdb</A> top 100. The latter site specifically asks for "favorites" and not "greats" which may explain why even <I><B>Citizen Kane</I></B> fails to crack the top 25. <BR/><BR/>The thing that was interesting about ymdb, especially when it was an active site, was not the big compiled list, but the ability to go in and see who was voting for your favorite obscure films, and see what else they were voting for that you might not have heard of. And perhaps get into conversations. It was fun. <BR/><BR/>Still, I paid enough attention to the compiled list to want to write a poll asking why users thought it was so dominated by recent films. I can now only find the <A HREF="http://www.shompy.com/pourquoi-la-plupart-des-films-dans-le-ha/s918,30_frfr.html" REL="nofollow">French version</A>, and I don't know French, but if you use google language tools you can get the basic gist of the question and all the answers except maybe the one with the second-most votes in the poll. Luckily that one was preserved in English in the comments on the side: "Modern people like modern films that express a modern zeitgeist".Brian Darrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693169310367670898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-38437568073565111722007-08-03T20:38:00.000-07:002007-08-03T20:38:00.000-07:00i think it lacks queer voices as well.i think it lacks queer voices as well.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07196770365237279809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-28284358620102744022007-08-03T20:25:00.000-07:002007-08-03T20:25:00.000-07:00yeah, i just looked again. no such luck as of yet....yeah, i just looked again. no such luck as of yet. damn.Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047006924444489024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-4386498665505855212007-08-03T20:01:00.000-07:002007-08-03T20:01:00.000-07:00Lucas--Just saw your post. I don't know the film's...Lucas--<BR/>Just saw your post. I don't know the film's status-- the copy I watched was from a college library, on VHS and kind of scratchy (which might be why it failed to engage me-- a better print almost always helps). I don't know when the school purchased it, or if it's still in print. Sorry I can't be more helpful!<BR/><BR/>Oh, and criterion also has a double-disc version of Breathless listed for october that looks loaded with all kinds of goodies, and a real upgrade on the fox lorber disc of a few years back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-74058095224194342762007-08-03T19:57:00.001-07:002007-08-03T19:57:00.001-07:00Aha! Curiosity got the better of me after I posted...Aha! Curiosity got the better of me after I posted, so I googled a bit and found this, from the criterion message board:<BR/><BR/>"Max Ophüls Box Set <BR/><BR/>.... <BR/>Forgive me if this has been mentioned elsewhere but just in case it hasn't: <BR/><BR/>Kim Hendrickson wrote:<BR/>Apologies for the delay in response. <BR/>We will be releasing an Ophuls box in late 2007/early 2008. It will contain several films, including The Earring of Madame de... and Le Plaisir. <BR/>I hope that helps. <BR/>Thanks for your interest in Criterion. <BR/><BR/>Best regards, <BR/>Kim Hendrickson"<BR/><BR/>Hopefully, that plan hasn't changed! Oh, and please forgive the typo in my previous posting-- "their/there" always gets me late at night. (:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-51885844756070737172007-08-03T19:57:00.000-07:002007-08-03T19:57:00.000-07:00cinephile,is Paris Belongs to Us now available in ...cinephile,<BR/><BR/>is <I>Paris Belongs to Us</I> now available in the US? I've been looking for that for monthsLucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047006924444489024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-75276655575403312412007-08-03T19:46:00.000-07:002007-08-03T19:46:00.000-07:00Over at Jim Emerson's site a few months ago, I tho...Over at Jim Emerson's site a few months ago, I thought someone mentioned in a comments section that someone-- criterion?-- was releasing an ophuls box in the US this year, and that it would include Madame de...(which I also have not seen, but very much want to, as I love Letter from an Unknown Woman and Lola Montes). Was this pulled? Delayed? Anyway, I laughed at lucas's comment, because that's the exact reason I haven't gotten a region-free player yet, either (but I probably will sometime soon, because there's just too much good stuff out their in other formats).<BR/><BR/> As for "films I should have seen"-- I mentioned in dennis's earlier, lovely post about bergman and antonioni that Bergman remains a big blank spot for me-- I just added Wild Strawberries and Fanny and Alexander to my netflix queue. I've never seen Greed, or Monsieur Verdoux. And I've honestly never been able to get through Paris Belongs To Us, a film which always sounds cool in the description, but which I find much less engaging than Celine and Julie Go Boating. Oh, and I somehow missed the boat on Being John Malkovich and Donnie Darko, two films my students like a lot.<BR/><BR/>But I've seen The Band Wagon six or seven times, so that seems like a pleasant trade-off to me. (:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-72020265580624967512007-08-03T17:06:00.000-07:002007-08-03T17:06:00.000-07:00ah, the region-free player. every time i nearly bu...ah, the region-free player. every time i nearly buy one, i discover that Criterion's about to release the film I've been waiting for. been pretty lucky with that so farLucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047006924444489024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-76737447144194983182007-08-03T16:27:00.000-07:002007-08-03T16:27:00.000-07:00Ah yes, a region-free player. Well I hope no one ...Ah yes, a region-free player.<BR/> <BR/>Well I hope no one was competing for the "Duh Moment of the Year" Award because I think I just won it. I'm currently inserting my brain back into my head this very moment. <BR/><BR/>Thanks Dennis.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-54130381011103995032007-08-03T16:22:00.000-07:002007-08-03T16:22:00.000-07:00Not at all sure about the gerry-rigging, Jonathan,...Not at all sure about the gerry-rigging, Jonathan, but DVD Beaver does offer this <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/ywccqj" REL="nofollow">link</A> to a whole slew of very inexpensive region-free players. It's where I got mine.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.com