MovieChat Forums > Flesh for Frankenstein (1974) Discussion > Criterian vs. Image

Criterian vs. Image

posted 18 years ago by BijouBob8mm
13 replies | jump to latest

After paying the price for the Criterian Collection version of this (which, like most Criterian titles, is usually about $10 or more higher than any other studio's release), I recently came across the new Image DVD reissue. Not only does it seem to offer all the extras from the Criterian DVD, but has a new transfer, as well as the added extras of screen tests and new audio reflections on the film by the director. Since Image is the one that distributes Criterian, I'm even more annoyed at paying more for less. (Criterian double dipped the 1946 French fantasy, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, offering a second--more deluxe--DVD version of it a few years back, as well.)

[–] camruud 18 years ago

Criterion is overrated

[–] herbie690 18 years ago

shut your trap!

[–] voss76 18 years ago

Criterion only double dips when they feel it nescessary and pertinent to do so. For instance since the Beauty and the Beast edition was realeased in the late 90s many major advancements have been made in the process of film restoration. So this means that the newer version of beauty and the beast that was re-released actually boasts of a better film quality as well as better sound mixes, etc...
Other notable re-releases of criterion dvds include: Wages of Fear, The 400 Blows, M, and coming soon Seven Samurai.
(And no I do not work for Criterion, Im just a fan.)

[–] mbgeorge 18 years ago

Until Criterion or Image includes the orginal 3-d version as a bonus feature, I'd recommend getting a 3-d (field sequential) version off of eBay though you will probably have Japanese subtitles that cannot be removed. The field sequential viewing systems are less than $100 and a lot of fun. (In the interests of disclosure, I am just a 3-d enthusiast and have no commercial ties to any field sequential viewing system).

[–] enfilmigult 18 years ago

I'll chime in here, as I actually did get a field sequential version from Ebay. Apparently the only 3D release this ever had was on VHS-quality tape (not Japanese VHD, as with many Hollywood titles), so the picture quality, alas, isn't that great—it's the first field sequential bootleg I've gotten that really looks like a bootleg. Still, it's got no subtitles, and if I had to guess I'd say it's probably the X-rated version; I've not compared, but based on the content alone I'd be surprised if it were censored. The 3D works nicely, though I was less than enchanted with the movie itself.

[–] chrischrisdoodah 18 years ago

The Criterion DVD is out of print, so Image probably decided to re-release it themselves under their cheaper brand because the extras aren't as comprehensive as newer criterion releases.

[–] enfilmigult 18 years ago

As far as I know, Image and Criterion aren't related (though HVE and Criterion are). Image did port over some of Criterion's features (the commentary, at least) to their new DVD, but that's not unusual—Criterion has struck deals with other distributors for such things in the past, sometimes because a promised release never happened but features were already prepared. To be fair, this isn't exactly a double-dip; the Criterion disc went out of print before the new one was released.

[–] arisdisc 18 years ago

You are correct. Criterion and Image have nothing to do with each other...business wise except that Image distributes Criterion, but they are two separate companies. (and it's been this way since the Laserdisc days of the late 80's thru 2000)

[–] DJ-Chojin 15 years ago

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/frankenstein.htm this is a comparison of flesh enjoy

That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die
H.P.LOVECRAFT

[–] josephbrando 12 years ago

I agree, Criterion is definitely overrated! One of the biggest disappointments so far, to me, was their release of "Videodrome". For years there had been extra footage shown in TV versions of the film - lots more Debbie Harry too!! But Criterion not only didn't insert them back into the film (which I could understand if the director did not wish it) but they didn't even throw them onto either of the 2 discs worth of crap as an extra.

For "Flesh Of Frankenstein" and its Dracula cousin, I would go with the Image DVD as it has anamorphic transfers of the films, the Criterion disc does not.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] surfink 12 years ago

Since nobody has specifically mentioned it in this thread, I just wanted to point out that the newer transfer on the Image DVD (reportedly supervised by Paul Morrissey) is far superior in picture quality, and not just due to the fact that it is in anamorphic widescreen versus the Criterion edition's letterboxed widescreen. The sharpness and detail, color fidelity, balance, and saturation, brightness, and contrast are all much improved in the Image DVD. So don't bother throwing away a lot of money on the OOP Criterion disc; the far cheaper Image edition is actually much better looking and includes the same commentary track plus a screen test and still gallery (both with Morrissey commentary) that were not on the Criterion DVD.