Customer Reviews

Sting [VHS]

5 star:		(155)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

I just bought this DVD for my father because this movie IS a classic, no matter what anyone says. But, when it came in the mail, I was surprised to see "Full Screen" on the front of the box. So I did what many of you did NOT do (with the exception of reviewer cammonro dated Sept 2, 2003), I went to the Universal web site and emailed their Home Entertainment division.

From Universal Studios Home Entertainment:

'The Sting' is only available on DVD in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which in this case displays the same picture information side-to-side as was seen theatrically. Also, more information is shown top-to-bottom than in the theatrical version because of the way the film was originally shot.

One process used in creating movies for theatrical exhibition is to place 'mattes' over the top and bottom of the 35 mm film frame to alter the aspect ratio to 1.85:1 'Widescreen.' To avoid black letterboxing bars on the top and bottom of the picture when it is displayed on standard television, the original mattes are removed in a process known as 'Open Matte.' (This is not to be confused with 'Pan & Scan,' a completely different process of transferring film to Video and DVD.) 'Open Matte' was used with in the production of 'The Sting.'

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. For all of you complaining about how this DVD is PAN-AND-SCAN, you are WRONG. And for all of you still waiting for WIDESCREEN, you ALREADY HAVE IT with this DVD if you understand what Universal is saying above; you are actually seeing MORE than what you'd see in the theater version because of the "Open Matte" process Universal used, NOT pan-and-scan.

If anyone begs to differ with these facts, argue with the source, Universal.

Please stop whining about this DVD's aspect ratio. It's not "full-screen." It's widescreen with the original top and bottom sections restored.

According to film historian David P. Hayes, THE STING was filmed in 4:3 (equivalent to "full-screen") ratio because director George Roy Hill wanted it to look like an old movie. The studio (and/or the exhibitors) apparently had second thoughts about it, though, so theatrically-released prints had the top and bottom sections blocked ("matted") to fit the widescreen format.

What you see on this DVD is not "pan and scan" (with missing left and right content), but the original format with the top and bottom restored.

(...)

Honestly i've seen better HD DVD's but still this one is remastered like crazy,its a hell of alot clearer than the original dvd release and its amazing to see what they can do with movies such as old as this one. I mean 1973 this movie comes out and after watching the HD DVD you would think it was a new release. All in all to keep this short this is an amazing film and you should pick it up on HD DVD right now!

I rated this DVD with only 3 stars because it's fullscreen. However, I JUST found a Region 1 Widescreen version of the DVD available at Amazon's Canadian website. As I just ordered it I can't rate the quality of the film or anything but I did want to let "everyone" know that it's out there. The website is: www.amazon.ca

Here are the specs on the DVD:
Edition Details:
* Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only)
* Language: English
* Theatrical Release Date: December 25, 1973
* Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
* Picture Format: Anamorphic Widescreen
* Subtitles in Danish / French / Swedish / German / Norwegian / Dutch / Czech / Finnish / Polish / Portuguese / English
* Snap Case
* Import
* Catalog Number: UDR90052
* ASIN: B00004SC8N

This is a great film. Anyone looking for a review of the actual film may look in any number of places and find that everyone agrees that it is outstanding.

HOWEVER, I failed to read the complete description for the DVD, foolishly assuming that the film would be presented in the appropriate widescreen format. I was shocked and appalled to receive the DVD and find that it was the pan 'n' scan version. This is entirely unacceptable. I returned the DVD and will wait for a letterboxed version.

Do not make the same mistake I made. If you have any interest in seeing this film as it was originally intended, and not "modified to fit your screen," do not purchase this DVD.

The film is a classic, the restoration is beautiful, and the restored audio is excellent, with one inexplicable gaff. During a humorous dialog exchange, one of Redford's funniest lines is replaced with a sanitized-for-TV dub, which I had only ever heard on the broadcast version of the movie.

Original Dialog
Gondorf: Luther didn't tell me you had a big mouth.
Hooker: He didn't tell me you was a f**k-up, neither.

The perfect timing of the exchange is blown to bits by the dubbed in line, "He didn't tell me you was a screw-up, neither," which has neither the delivery nor the comic impact of Redford's original. Even if it meant getting the film re-rated, this movie deserved better treatment. Why a company would go the all the effort of restoring a classic, award-winning film, then leave in a clumsy, laugh-robbing dub like this, is a complete mystery to me.

Other than this one cringing moment, it's a true gem.

Here's the real deal. The U.S. out-of-print "The Sting" DVD's are full screen. The U.S. September 6, 2005 "The Sting" DVD is cropped widescreen. I have watched both presentations, and BOTH ARE FINE. Neither presentation distracts from the FUN. If widescreen gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, get the new one. Purists will want the old full screen with no top/bottom picture loss. The dreaded "This film has been modified from its original version - It has been formatted to fit this screen." message on the 1998 full screen version is MISLEADING. The only "modification" is more picture at the top and more picture at the bottom than the widescreen theatrical release had. The director shot the film using 35 mm 4:3 open matte, but his bosses chose to crop the theatrical version. Oh, and note that this and all earlier reviews were written before the September 6, 2005 cropped widescreen version release date.

This film, which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1973, is available on VHS in the widescreen format.

So why in the world would it take one of its golden movies from its great library and slap it onto a DVD in a full aspect ratio (TV Land) format? The video and audio quality are terrific. Otherwise, the "no-widescreen" decision doesn't make sense at all.

Is this a "trend" adopted by some home video divisions at the studios in California to accommodate the still larger group of non-purists who prefer seeing movies in the dumb pan and scan or what I laughably call the "HBO format?"

Go over to AMC and Turner Classic Movies on cable and the trend over there, for people who are movie purists, is in a completely opposite direction. More of their films are being shown on cable in the widescreen format.

"The Sting" is the second major crtically acclaimed Universal studio release on DVD that is being offered without the widescreen format. The other, and you'll choke on this when you hear this, is "Babe," the delightful film that was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture in 1995. Even more puzzling is Universal Studio's decision to release the sequel, "Babe: A Pig in the City," which was little seen in theaters, in full widescreen format on DVD.

Why widescreen on one and not the other? I could understand it if the studio released information indicating to consumers that the awful 1:33:1 aspect ratio (the 35mm norm for nearly all films released in the United States before 1953) was the original theatrical issue, but I don't believe this was the case for 1995's masterful "Babe."

Another atrocious miscue by another company, is being commited by Fox Video for its DVD version of Alan Parker's gloriously intoxicating film, "The Commitments," another film that deserves the widescreen treatment and not crummy pan and scan.

Please, fellow Amazonians out there, get on the bandwagon and clamor for the studios, at the very least, to offer both formats on DVD, and not one at the exclusion of the other! This is the way most of the major DVD releases are done right now anyway (widescreen on side A and pan and scan on side B).

Perhaps Universal's handling of "Babe" was to cater to the "kiddie crowd." But that's insulting if the film's popularity hadn't crossed over to adults, it wouldn't have made as much money as it did and just as important, it would not have been nominated for Best Picture in 1995.

But the lack of a widescreen DVD for "The Sting" is truly, truly a puzzle, a riddle, a baffling decision by Universal. I can think of no acceptable explanation other than they didn't want to spend the money to treat one of its Oscar-winning gems on DVD the way it treated it for the currently available widescreen version of "The Sting" on VHS. Does anyone at Universal/MCA at Universal City, California have an answer that makes sense?

This is truly a travesty for DVD fans!

The most successful "sting" occurs when a victim never realizes that she or he has been "stung." In this Academy Award winning best film, that would be Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), a mobster/gambler in Chicago in the 1930s who is bilked out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) and his associates who include Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford). Credit George Roy Hill with brilliant direction of an especially talented cast. The musical score is eminently appropriate, devised by Marvin Hamlisch based on the works of Scott Joplin. A great deal of real or apparent blood is shed as elaborate preparations for the sting are completed. Most of the characters are not who and what they seem. We know what Gondorff and Newman are up to, of course, which adds to the fun. But there is a twist near the end of the film which fooled me. The narrative is seamless. The pace is expeditious but unhurried. In all respects, this is a thoroughly entertaining film but also one which at least suggests some darker regions of human nature. Those who enjoy it may wish to check out The Grifters (1990) which also has a bittersweet flavor at times. For broader humor, I suggest Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988).

NOTE: My comments are limited entirely to the film itself. Although the image and sound are clearer than in the VHS format, the supplementary features are unworthy of this Academy Award winning best film.

The acting is wonderful, the suprises are unpredictable, and overall, this is one of the most original movies I've ever seen in my life. There can be no duplicates. And evey time i watch this movie, some how I notice about five things I've never seen before, like it changes every time. And no, I'm not an old movie collector or total classic lover, actually, I'm only sixteen. But this is easily one of my favorite movies in history. My favorite scene is with the card playing on the train.