Mute Witness

[Reverenddave]

According to Digital Bits, Columbia/Tri-Star is releasing MUTE WITNESS on 8/26. I love this movie. I never see people talking about it. Has anyone else seen it?

Here's some reviews:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...09/997219.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ley_c03551.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...15/DD16778.DTL

You can check out the trailer here: (you'll need a magnifying glass)

http://www.sonypictures.com/classics...ps/trailer.mov

[Paff]

One of the best movies of the 90s

I have the Laserdisc, which is mis-framed at 1.85:1. The theatrical presentation was 2.35:1, which will hopefully be the aspect ratio of the upcoming DVD.

It's the best Hitchcock film not directed by Hitchcock (and yes, I'm familiar with the work of Brian DePalma). Director Waller blends humor, suspense, and action seamlessly. The opening 45 minutes, a stalking scene in an abandoned Russian studio is among the best sequences I've ever seen put on film. The use of extensive Russian dialogue, with no subtitles, perfectly adds to the feel of isolation. And it has perhaps the funniest use of female full frontal nudity. (most female nude scenes are used for eroticism, male nude scenes are for comic relief. It was refreshing to see female nudity used for humor).

Trivia: The main actress, supposed to be an American in the film, is also Russian.

[sinister]

I've also got the LD. It's a cool movie, but kinda disappointing by the end 'cause the 2nd half really doesn't live up to the standard set in the 1st half, similar to Jeepers Creepers which i thought started really well but went downhill fast after a while.

Mute witness is worth seeing just for the first 40 odd mins though, they are exceptionally well shot and lit, the tension is sustained perfectly too. Then it completely changes pace and direction and becomes a different film, almost like it's shot by a different director or something. If you've seen Jeepers Creepers you'll know exactly what i mean.

[X-human]

The first half of the movie is great, but once they try to add an air of mystery to it about "the disk" I think it really went down hill.

Certainly one of the best horror films of the 90's, no doubt about that.

A great movie. I saw this sometime ago in Japan and recently watched in again on a trip to Korea. Didn't someone in the US do a remake?

[WesReviews]

Good movie. I rented this back in the day and was really impressed by it. I'll probably pick this up.

Originally posted by Deaddevilman
A great movie. I saw this sometime ago in Japan and recently watched in again on a trip to Korea. Didn't someone in the US do a remake?

Well even though it takes place in Russia, it is in English, most of it anyway, and it made little money here and is only about 8 years old, or at least that's when I saw it in the theater. So I doubt a remake would ever occur, let alone in the last few years that no one has heard of.

I also thought it was great and I have been wondering about the aspect ratio as well. I have a DVD copy from when they ran it on IFC, and it was in 1.85. We may not be able to rely on IMDB on the OAR, unless someone has a really good memory from when they saw it in the theater.

[Paff]

Originally posted by Disco Stu
I have a DVD copy from when they ran it on IFC, and it was in 1.85. We may not be able to rely on IMDB on the OAR, unless someone has a really good memory from when they saw it in the theater.

I had a long argument with someone about it, as he claimed he saw it in 2.35:1. My counter-argument was the Laserdisc's claim that "Mute Witness is presented in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1". Then I saw the IMDB bit you mention.

My personal guess is that this was shot in Super 35, which is often matted down to 2.35:1 for the theater. One thing I think is odd is the nude scene I mentioned above. I'm talking about when Marina Sudina flashes the peeping tom. I first rented the tape, and I'm pretty damn sure I saw bush. But you really can't on the 1.85:1 LD. So I'll be real interested to see how they do the DVD.

Originally posted by Paff
I had a long argument with someone about it, as he claimed he saw it in 2.35:1. My counter-argument was the Laserdisc's claim that "Mute Witness is presented in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1". Then I saw the IMDB bit you mention.

My personal guess is that this was shot in Super 35, which is often matted down to 2.35:1 for the theater. One thing I think is odd is the nude scene I mentioned above. I'm talking about when Marina Sudina flashes the peeping tom. I first rented the tape, and I'm pretty damn sure I saw bush. But you really can't on the 1.85:1 LD. So I'll be real interested to see how they do the DVD.

You also can't rely on LD ratios, note the misframing on Ferris Bueller's Day Off and A Life Less Ordinary, both shot in super 35 and both matted improperly at 1.85. I'm sure there are more, but these come to mind immediately.

[wago70]

I saw this presented in the ultra-wide 2.35:1 at the cinema and was really disappointed with the laserdisc release. I don't understand why they presented it like that. Unless, of course, it was a Super 35 (be damned) flick - the "TV safe" faux widescreen non-technology.

I agree- The first half of this film is one of the most gripping suspense films I've ever seen, countered by the fact that the last half of the movie is one of the more pathetic films I've ever seen. Its extremely annoying and you can tell it took them years to make the movie because it is just so uneven.

[Yowie]

Wasn't there some controvesy surrounding Alec Guinness and this movie ?. Something about his scenes having been shot years before, or after they finished the film ?.

[Paff]

Yes, Alec Guiness' scenes were shot several years in advance. It was on a chance meeting in 1985, 8 years before the rest of the film began shooting. It was also supposed to be set in Chicago, but I can't imagine it being half as good had everyone in the cast spoke English.

As far as the second half of the movie being terrible...I dunno. I think it's pretty consistent until the final sequences, the last 15 minutes or so. They use the "disc MacGuffin" to facilitate the second attack on Billy, in her apartment, and I think that sequence works almost as well as the opening one. Even more use of Hitchcock style suspense mixed with humor.

Also, this movie is well worth checking out, if just for the one scene of

Spoiler: the shadow of the knife blade, which is then revealed to be just the brim of a hat

I rented this a couple of years ago and thought it was pretty good, although I will admit the 2nd half wasn't nearly as good as the 1st. I'll probably pick this up when it comes out on DVD.

[JW77]

Originally posted by Paff
My personal guess is that this was shot in Super 35, which is often matted down to 2.35:1 for the theater. One thing I think is odd is the nude scene I mentioned above. I'm talking about when Marina Sudina flashes the peeping tom. I first rented the tape, and I'm pretty damn sure I saw bush. But you really can't on the 1.85:1 LD. So I'll be real interested to see how they do the DVD.

If you saw bush in the fullscreen that wasn't in the widescreen, then it could've either been shot Super-35 or flat for 1.85:1.

Either way, the fullscreen version would most likely expose more visual information at the top and bottom of the screen than the widescreen version.

(A good example of this is "Single White Female." When Jennifer Jason Leigh is in the shower, she's sitting and gets up. In the fullscreen version, her pubic hair is visible, but in the widescreen version, the image cuts off just below her navel.)