Customer Reviews

Charley Varrick [VHS]

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

Charley Varrick is a great movie. Walter Matthau is excellent, and Don Siegel is a great director.

Why oh why did Universal decide to release this in a cropped version? This DVD is a 1.33:1 transfer of a film that was shot in 1.85:1.

When the same thing happened with Sydney Pollack's under-rated gem "Castle Keep", mavericks like Martin Scorsese lobbied to have a widescreen version of the film released on DVD, and they were triumphant. Hopefully that will happen with this equally-worthy film.

I've waited a few years for "Varrick" to come out on DVD.

And now that it did come out, I will not buy it.

That is because I do not enjoy watching 60% of a film. When the studio halfwits realize that only brain damaged in-duh-viduals want to see the cut, blurred by panning-and-scanning full screen version, and when they decide to release "Varrick" in a proper, widescreen version instead - *then* I will purchase a copy. As for this one, I would not want it for free.

I totally subscribe to the views expressed by many reviewers. This is a travesty of a release. Charley Varrick is a superb film with a cult status only because it has never been adequately presented or marketed. I bought this in advance of its release on the bizarrely timed date at the end of december 2004 (Have the marketing department never heard of Christmas?) and I was thoroughly disappointed. The print looks like a bad 70's piece of television and the ratio is the same. This film was shot and screened in the cinemas as a panavision 1:85 or wider ratio. Who wants to look at something that doesn't reflect its true worth? Don't buy this even though it is a great film. Wait until someone wakes up and does a proper job!

So long as studios continue to release DVDs shot with wide-angled lenses in only a reformatted television aspect ratio, we should all protest as vociferously as possible. Unfortunately, it appears that the outcry over `Charley Varrick' as shown by numerous critiques on this site and elsewhere is misinformed and does not apply. At the Internet Movie Data Base site (www.imdb.com), it is stated under the technical notes for `Charley Varrick' that the movie was filmed using the spherical lens system. This means that it was NOT filmed in a wide-angled lens format, but rather in the standard television aspect ratio of 1.33:1, which is what a spherical lens provides. For those who recall viewing it in a widescreen form in theaters or on cable shows like Bravo, this was because the movie was then `soft' matted into a 1.85:1 aspect following filming, by artificially masking the frame across the top and bottom, thus cutting off what was intended to be superfluous objects and views in those areas (note for example how the credits are centered to leave large spaces both above and below for the matting). When, as Universal does on the current DVD release, the movie is then declared `reformatted to fit the standard television screen,' what is meant is that the matting itself is not provided (unlike the laser disc release), and what the viewer is seeing is the original, spherical 35 mm print before it was masked. While one would perhaps feel more comfortable seeing it in its theatrically matted form, in reality nothing is lost in the DVD version as it would be if it was from a film shot with a wide-angle lens.

So please let us save our outcry for those films shot in the various wide-angle lens ratios that are then criminally released in the reformatted, 1.33:1 television aspect. I am referring, for example, to pick another Universal title, to a movie such as Van Damme's `Timecop,' originally shot in a 2.35:1 Panavision aspect and then cruelly cut down on the DVD for the standard television screen. This as far as we consumers go should not be tolerated, but we do need to aim our protests in the correct direction and not misfire when a matted rather than a genuine widescreen aspect movie is involved. (For an expert description of the various widescreen techniques, the site www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/4303/vertical35mm.html is strongly recommended.) In the meantime, hopefully we can all settle down and enjoy the quirky delights of Walter Matthau and Charley Varrick as it was originally filmed in the 1.33:1 television aspect ratio. As for those who MUST have the film as it appeared in theaters, by the way, the application of an inch or two of black masking tape across the top and bottom of your TV screen should give a reasonable representation of that original feeling!

Everyone knows this is a great film, and in my opinion it gets better with every viewing. The plot is surprisingly intricate, and there is no dialogue explaining what is going on -- a true rarity.

But what about the DVD? I bought it, after delaying for a long time because of the angry reviews re fullscreen versus widescreen. And, indeed, I wish the DVD had a glorious widescreen print. But it is great anyway. It seems obvious that the film was shot fullscreen, since there is not a single shot that seems awkward. No pan-and-scan. No shots of one person on the screen when there should be two. No half heads. Moreover, the 'extra' material on the top and bottom of the screen never looks awkward. It looks like it was composed for full screen presentation. The picture is very nice. There is nothing to distract you from the very fine film.

To anyone who is hesitating over this purchase for purely technical reasons I recommend that you hesitate no longer.

First let me say that I was as disappointed as anyone when this film finally made it to DVD in a full-screen format. I have pampered and treasured my VHS version for years, and I guess I will continue to do so. But, in a way, I shouldn't have been surprised by universal's decision to go the cheap route. This great film has never - and apparently will never - get the respect it deserves.

Charlie Varrick is an underappreciated gem that belongs at the very top of the list of the Director, Don Siegal's work. It is, in my opinion, a tighter film that Coogan's Bluff and a less sentimental film than Dirty Harry (I love both these Eastwood vehicles, however, so don't get me wrong). There is something very tough and realistic about Charlie Varrick, though, that makes this movie one of the best depictions of a professional criminal that can be found anywhere.

Charlie Varrick is a professional bank robber that has inadvertently stolen some mob money. Trouble follows in the form of Joe Don Baker, the enforcer sent to get the money back.

Baker is one of the reasons this film is so strong. This is one of his early rolls, made just about the same time that he starred in Walking Tall, which was the career-defining role for the actor. He is better used in this film, which really takes advantage of his sadistic grin and slit-eyed malevolence. Baker is all about power in this film, striding along Varrick's trail like Texas royalty in cowboy hat and boots, smashing the peasants that litter his path with distain as he stalks Verrick and the mob money. His enjoyment in causing pain is palpable, and he is the very last guy in the world you want looking for you.

Walther Matthau is the main show, though. Today, folks tend to remember Matthau as a lovable grump, basically a comedic actor with a rumbled face and a clever way with caustic one-liners. But Matthau was in a few of the more interesting action films in 1970's, including The Laughing Policeman, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, and this film, which is his best. As usual, his great strength in this kind of drama is his gift for understatement and his ability to convey intelligence. Matthau always projected the competence of a professional - always icy cool and smart.

Like most of Don Siegal's work, this is a lean, clean film that hits like a hammer. Nothing flashy or prosaic, just a great story put on film with tremendous maturity and confidence.

All right, the DVD full-screen format is a big let down, but for now it is the only way you will see this film. And you really should see it. So don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Buy it and watch it. Without question it is still a film worth having. -Mykal Banta

Great film, messed up by pan and scan -- avoid and wait for the Panavision version

This is an off-beat film in which Walter Matthau stars as a small-time thief who, with accomplice Harman Sullivan (ably played by Andrew Robinson), robs a money laundering operation which is cleverly disguised as small-town bank in New Mexico. (Had streetsmart Varrick known of the Mob's involvement, he would not have robbed the bank.) Of course neither the Mob nor the police are pleased with the loss of about $750,000. With that in hand, Varrick and his partner struggle to decide what to do next. Meanwhile, the Mob has assigned one of its ablest representatives, Molly (Joe Don Baker), to locate the thieves, eliminate them, and recover the money. Credit director Don Siegel with selecting Matthau to be Varrick. I have always thought that Matthau's talents as a serious actor were under-appreciated. He is brillliant in this role. All other members of the cast are first-rate, notably John Vernon (Maynard Bock) and Sheree North (Jewell Everett). Siegel makes a brief appearance as Murph. Those who enjoy this film should check out The Outfit (1973) in which Baker also appears as well as The Getaway (1994).

This is a terrific film and deserves a terrific release in its intended aspect ratio. However, I think the reviewers who state that it is cropped or panned-and-scanned are wrong. To me it looks as if the film was shot open matte and the DVD release includes the whole image. This is true for many Universal DVDs, especially those for 70s films.

Charley Varrick was clearly framed for a wider image, especially the action scenes, and a re-release with the proper AR would be welcome. That said, with this release you are not losing any part of the image, but gaining an extra, unnecessary part. So this is a flawed product but not as flawed as you might think. If you want an anamorphic version of the film, invest in a region free player and pick up the UK release from Amazon.co.uk. Even with the exchange rate and increased shipping the disc will cost you about what a new DVD of the US release would here.

I saw this movie on television several times on a cable movie network, always presented in widescreen format. It's a terrific movie with solid performances and many wonderful character actors. It has a mature pace, meaning slower than one would expect an action film, but done deliberately to build tension and heighten anxiety.

When I saw this had been released on DVD, I cheered out loud and snapped up a copy, only to be extremely disappointed to find that it is pan and scan. I should have checked the box first, but I never in my wildest dreams would have expected this film to be released in anything other than widescreen.

Pan and scan is a problem because you are missing important chunks of the film. In one scene, a bad guy is seen laying defeated in the background; in the pan and scan, you can't see him clearly, and the impact of that shot is completely ruined. You might even miss the bad guy in the background, meaning you wouldn't even understand the ending. There is another scene in a farm pasture with John Vernon that looks downright silly cropped to the 1.33:1 ratio. This particular pan and scan print seems to be a network television transfer, and since this was shown in widescreen on cable television in the 1990s, I am at a complete loss as to why Universal screwed up so badly and sold us this print instead of the good one.

It's a small film that very few people know about, so I am not holding my breath that Universal will correct this.