captainsolo

CAV and CLV are to me image-wise like 33 1/3 and 45rpm records. You get a higher fidelity with one, but it isn't a deal breaker to have the other.

On ESB I don't know if really any changes were made on the editions throughout the 80's, save for some possible re-equalizing here and there. The 89 era sound should be fine as an alternate. The stereo surround on DJ's V3 as an ac3 track came from an early LD that was not time compressed and is supposedly the theatrical. It's analog sourced as well, probably very similar if not identical to what Silver gave you.

Imagine heading to a small derelict theater in late 1980 and catching a late show of ESB...32 years on. !

SilverWook said:

Can a human body even move like that? It's like SE Han has rubber bones!

It also synchs up quite well with this classic 90's dance song. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0qyyKj5Qk

Ahh, he understands the magic of Haddaway. Next thing you know he'll be hitting awkwardly on Greedo.

In this case, book Han wins, To corpse: "It'll take a lot more than the likes of you to finish me off. Jabba the Hutt always did skimp when it came to hiring his hands." To Wuher: "Sorry about the mess. I always was a rotten host."

OzoneSherrif said:

what most haven't noticed though are a few Rebel style rifles hanging on a wall on the Death Star 2 behind a couple of Imperial control operators.

Try the Detention block guards confronting the intruders with Rebel blasters. That gets me every time.

I had heard of this disguise and seen the shot but never actually picked it out while watching the film. You just see the other troopers all bunched together in a master shot that doesn't last very long and assume they're all unimportant, like before when they were sent off to go god knows where while the important people bungled catching some scout troopers. Should have just sent in Pruneface. ;)

Batman & Robin: A film so bad even Batgirl throws in her cowl.

That isn't just bad, that's plain lazy! They look like really bad temp pictureholders for Amazon or something!

The new one for Strangers on a Train was pretty lackluster but nothing compared to that above:

The interlacing comes from some aspects of the DVD transfers. They sometimes break into combing effects in order to faithfully preserve the animation IIRC.  That edit does remind me of how much I disliked the art changes made for TNBA. (Except Babs of course ;)

But that is awesome in every sense of the word. Uhh...Kevin Conroy doing the lines from the trailer...speechless. And hearing Alfred to boot!

I'm seeing the IMAX version as soon as possible (probably Saturday) since the theater nearest to me receives one of the IMAX film prints. Is anybody else going the IMAX route or seeing one of the trilogy screenings?

You're welcome Falcon! I remember when I first started studying Hitchcock all the big textbooks played up the original version's importance and all but thumbed their noses looking down over the "tawdry" 50's American version. The British film just is not a complete story as the remake is. It is a great movie, exciting and fresh today, and very ahead of its time but as Hitch himself said the later version was made by a professional.

Looking at my DVD Masterpiece Collection title by title after all this time has been very revealing. That TMWKTM is heinously bad. I sure hope that the Blu-ray comes from a different master, but with no work really going into it or Vertigo I think it's going to be the lesser regarded titles that will shine. (Saboteur, but especially Rope and The Trouble With Harry which both have stunning repertory prints I've seen in the last few years. Imagine the DVDs on massive steroids. Massive. If done correctly, Harry should be catalog title of the year.)

My problem with the early films and the silents has always been the sheer awfulness of any available transfer and their confinement primarily to the public domain. It wasn't even until pretty recently that you could even hope to see The Pleasure Garden and the only decent releases are PAL and a bit on the expensive side. I've always held out for someone (Criterion, clears throat, this should have been no. 1 in your Eclipse line) to finally do NTSC transfers worth a damn. I haven't seen Blackmail in ages because of this, which I hold as likely the first fully functioning talkie and light years ahead of its time.

Have been thinking about getting one of these PAL sets though I loathe speedup. I'm so very tired of all my ultra el-cheapo DVD sets with prints so worn that they look far worse than all the public domain VHS tapes I grew up on.

Yes I do hold The Lodger as a silent masterwork, but even in the silent period, I've always felt that Hitch was still learning; still gaining all of the necessary aspects that came to define his career. There was his early successes, his early failures, the period of adaptations and that darn musical before TMWKTM v.1, and also his working/training at Ufa.

The first true Hitchcock film was The Lodger. But it took time for the first fully fledged and complete Hitchcock film to emerge and that is

The 39 Steps (1935)

Masterful, exciting, inventive, exhilarating, endearing, genuinely funny, and one of those few absolutely perfect films. The foundation for the sound action adventure film, and chock full of all the famous Hitchcock motifs that popped up in nearly every one of his later films. Magnificent in every way.

There is more storytelling in one minute of this film than ever conceivable. This is where The Master earned his title.

4 balls out of 4...steps? missing top joints of the little finger? pairs of handcuffs?

As for Batman Forever, I still think it is in no way awful. It was extremely compromised by imposed edits not once but several times, and it's surprising that what was left in even makes sense at all.

Both versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934 and 1956)

The first film has gained a large following who suggest that it is better than Hitch's own remake. (It isn't.) It is a return to form for Hitch, who at the time had done a series of literary based flops and a musical. ( A musical!) It shows his developing strengths and sets the stage for the first masterpiece, The 39 Steps.

The later film is in a serious state of neglect, both physically and critically. It is need of restoration but Universal never wants to pay up for any work. It is ignored by most as mere fluff, but it in every way superior to the original film. Shot in VistaVision that still shines through the years of neglect, with inventive writing again by John Michael Hayes, and great performances from Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day this clearly is the superior film. The climax in the Royal Albert Hall is still riveting after 30+ views and could and should be used to teach people about filmmaking.

The release of both versions are rather poor. The original is one of the British period that remains in the public Domain with no good NTSC release other than Laserdisc. There are a few PAL transfers that are supposedly good in box set releases. The remake had it's initial release on DVD minus the VistaVision opening logo and from what appeared to be a heavily worn show print, perhaps one of the 1983 "lost Hitchcock" theatrical prints. Lots of visible damage throughout and noisy audio but still watchable. The later release in the Masterpiece Collection and standalone is perhaps the worst ever catalog release from a major studio. I have no idea what went wrong, but the entire film seems blown-up, out of focus, color bleached, the sound is heavily denoised, and throughout the film parts of the frame have a shimmering digital mastering error, causing these parts to pop in and out of focus in a horrible shimmering effect.

The 1934 version: 3.5 balls out of 4 Peter Lorres.

The 1956 remake: 4 balls out of 4 wives you give sedatives before you tell her that your child has been kidnapped.

Warbler said:

captainsolo said:

My question has always been: Where is this Kryptonian?

well . . . for a awhile he was in a sort of heaven with his Lois Lane and others after his earth was destroyed.   Then,  he came  back and tried to recreate his earth.   When he realized his friend Alex(who was him in the sort of heaven) was up to no good, he tried to stop him.    He stopped Alex's plan, but died in the process.   He is now in the real heaven . . . I think.

What? Is this from Superman comics or something? Maybe there is a reason why I'm a Bat-fan and not too interested in Kal-El. I had meant the spirit of the Fleischer Superman being present in a film.

My feelings on TDKR are: to avoid spoilers and try to control my trepidation.

They don't need restoration, but new transfers to really get all the detail out of the films. Raiders had a full scale 4K job done by Ron Smith before he left Paramount (he also did Ten Commandments and the like) and so I have some faith in what the eventual product will look like. That said the new 35mm print has issues and seems to be a bit revealing of the work that was done. I don't know if it's quite the same film that was released in 1981 visually.

Jaws looks as though it will be tampered with so that the Blu-ray will look nice, but in no way indicative of a film release din 1975.

-1 interesting tests with the FilmGuard. If it goes successfully are you going to use it on selected damaged parts?

There's also the Theatrical Stereo that was on DJ's GOUT V3, which IIRC came from an early LD that wasn't time compressed. It may be the same or very similar to Mallwalker's.

It will be interesting to hear the folddown. Maybe they used all channels and basically made an identical mono mix.

Seriously beyond excited about this. The mice are already looking like the tunnel of rats under the Istanbul Russian consulate with their excitement. ;)

Coily returns!

THX never ran on TV. That's why it popping up on TCM was such a big deal to me as a kid.

It's beginning to look like the only way we'll ever get all our questions answered is to find prints of the '71 release version and the the '78 Director's re-release. As if anyone's really surprised. ;)

My question has always been: Where is this Kryptonian?

Can't wait! Now to prep a midnight release party with vinegar smells, burnt popcorn and the works. ;)

Strangers on a Train

Though a great movie, I'll admit that I've never really liked this film very much. I think it comes down to two reasons: Farley Granger's very undeveloped, cold and distant "hero" who has very little connection to the audience and the script being too much of a rush job. Other than the opening, the magnificent stalking sequence and the ending, the film consistently falls flat on suspense and story.

There are masterful sequences, camera angles, and this is the darkest picture Hitch had made in years. But it was a make or break point for the Master as he was in dire need of a hit. (It had been 5 years since his last one.) The previous four had all been flops, and his independent company Transatlantic had fallen apart. This being his second picture on his new Warner contract, he really had to provide the goods and impress the studio.

Robert Walker makes the film. We sympathize with his Bruno and not Granger's almost abrasive Guy Haines (who was far better in Rope IMO). We wish for his insane plan to succeed because he is so full of exuberance and vitality. Plus, he has carried out his half, and Guy now must surely follow through on his...but you will do it, won't you Guy...? The Bruno character is so well thought out, so energized, so almost loveable that you can't tear your eyes away from him. For the first time in a Hitchcock film, we not only sympathize for the villain, but begin to actively champion his cause. This is a career performance, sadly near his last for Walker died accidentally shortly after finishing the film. As much as Bogie deserved his Oscar, or even Brando, this performance deserved such recognition. Not only is Bruno charming, but he seems so eager to please everyone.

The stalking of Guy's wife to and through the carnival is one of the finest crafted moments in all of cinema. This is one of those sequences you could teach an entire how-to course over. It is also a mark of how well Hitch and cinematographer Robert Burks worked and understood each other. From this point until his death, Burks shot every Hitchcock film.

I still want to read the original novel, because there are some huge differences, and I absolutely love the premise. Problems arose when they began the treatments knowing of the extreme changes the Production Code would insist upon. Then it was decided to hire a notable literary figure to collaborate on the screenplay. Sadly, their choice was never meant to be a Hitchcock collaborator as the methods of Raymond Chandler were about as opposite as you could get. The two Masters has such differing methods that the sessions quickly fell apart and Hitch began shooting without a finished script. This really shows in the final film, and I'm not discrediting the work done by Cenzi Ormonde and Alma Hitchcock who did an admirable job in fitting the story into the Hitchcock thriller mold in a very limited time frame.

But that what the film reeks of: a calculated attempt to cash in on strengths, a great story premise that is shoehorned into a workable Hitchcock film. The film was a hit, but Hitchcock continued to flounder until he found the things he was looking for; new interesting material, a fresh voice in that of writer John Michael Hayes and a studio that would back his ideas in Paramount.

As a lifelong film buff, as a movie lover, as a film historian this is a great movie. But as a Hitchcock scholar it falls far short of what it could be. I always am turned off at the inherent disconnect between the premise and the follow through.

4 balls out of 4. Crisscross.

zombie84 said:

Trooperman: You may be in luck, most 35mm prints of TOD are very "used" looking if you know what I mean. A digital presentation may come from a studio master, and in almost all cases are better than vintage prints. Although I know it's cool just to say you've seen a certain film on film...

I would love to see the new restored prints of ROTLA. I've seen the film on 35mm a few times, but all prints are going pink and the ones I've watched have some rough spots in them too.

Basically, imagine the supersaturated look of the first teaser trailer of Raiders lasting for the entire film, and you begin to get the idea of what the restoration looks like. It is insanely bright, except for the opening in the jungle, and even then the sky is so bright that the while lettering of the opening titles blends in the with the sky. Sharpness is also insanely high, seeming possibly tweaked along with the contrast levels.

I saw it in 35mm and other than a few very awkwardly placed reel changes, it seemed fine-though not exactly like the film was shot to my eyes. I also noticed some faint lines that seemed to be attempts to digitally erase damage done to the negative during the Tanis dig sequences.

I'm thinking that some of this stuff I was noticing may be seeing slightly past the 4K workflow due to being printed to 35. The print was brand new and it was all source artifacts and not print damage.

georgec said:

I know I read a review somewhere about an HD showing of the trilogy earlier this year. Someone perhaps at AICN reported the movies were intact (truck going off cliff reverted to original shot in Raiders). The only change was the snake reflection was still scrubbed out, and that's such a small change (probably for the better).

The snake reflection is indeed still gone, just as the rod removed for the boulder has been confirmed as gone. (I always miss spotting it though.) Makes me wonder why they copied these moves done at the time of the Lowry DVD cleanup for a supposed archival restoration.

Audio is the same 5.1 mix, which doesn't seem to have had any changes made. I think the audio I heard was run in Dolby Digital right off the print, and it was completely underwhelming. Think like you have the DVD turned way down so that the surrounds are hardly ever on. The Blu audio will likely be a DTS-HDMA version of the same track.

Silver, I am not surprised on the vintage docs not being included. They reveal too much truths and are typically too honest. Plus no one like to take 5 minutes and go through the vaults properly. ;)

Warbler said:

what's a skull disc and why do I hear talk in this thread of a fourth Indy movie?   There are only three. 

It's a commemorative coaster included as swag inside the box. ;)

Trooperman, that should be an original print of Temple. Only Raiders had a restoration, and the Lowry work for the DVD wasn't done for prints. Wonder what kind of shape its in...I'd love to see it!

zombie84 said:

Batman Returns (1992) 8/10 - I've never actually seen this one all the way through, and now that I have, I must say it is far superior to it's predecessor. It's just really weird - in a good way.

I've shamefully only seen TDK once (I know, I know), but this is still my favourite film in the Batman series. Except, I don't really look at it as a Batman film. It's just Tim Burton being given an unlimited amount of money to do whatever he wanted as long as Batman was in their somewhere. And I would consider it his best film; it's basically a 1930s German Expressionist horror film. TDK is probably the best Batman film, but this is the best film in the franchise, if that makes any sense.

Yay, people like Returns!!It is far and away the best Burton film to me, and though not always in the comic sense the most dark feeling Batman of the films. Whereas, TDK never felt like any sort of Batman to me. I put Returns at the top of the live-action heap and tied with Mask of the Phantasm. It just has a character depth and subtlety that is never in any of these films, and that is something to be treasured. The moment when Bruce finds the cat in the snowy alleyway is easily one of the finest moments in the Batmans. No, it doesn't make much sense, but it is completely dramatically fulfilling.

“You’re just jealous, because I’m a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!”

--”You might be right“

It is a reactionary Batman, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. The film sets up that between films the outsider vigilante has cleaned up Gotham's streets and so there would be less for him to be doing,, leaving the plot to be driven by the villains.

Don't feel bad you've only seen TDK once. Now I've seen it three times and nothing changed.

georgec said:

The Day of the Jackal - very interesting film about an assassination attempt on Charles de Gaulle. 8/10

A very good movie, and a good adaptation of Forsyth. Edward Fox is phenomenal.

I Confess (1952)

This is lower-tier Hitchcock, and a compromised film that for many reasons, including its 94 minute runtime, never gets the chance to develop or really breathe. Still, the premise the film is built around is intriguing: a murder is confessed to a priest, and when he is suspected of the crime himself, he can say nothing because the confession was sacred.

Realistically this would never fly, as no priest in their right mind would so adhere to old doctrine that isn't even followed in such a way. But setting that aside it is an interesting idea. The surrounding film was made in Canada for some odd reason, perhaps indicative of a lower budget. There's really nothing other than the premise that is interesting, and the Hitchcockian moments are few and far between. It is a testament to Hitch's visual style and sense of commitment. Thus, the cinematography is stunning at times and the film does not overstay its welcome. All in all it seems a dry run for The Wrong Man.

I liked it better this viewing, because I was struck at just how good Monty Clift was. His portrayal of Father Logan drives the story and is the heart of the film. He has a quiet sense of reserved dignity which could can come across as abrasive somewhat. When suspicion is thrown upon him this becomes disconnected utter anguish that is etched entirely on his face. You could mute the film (as with all Hitchcock) and simply watch his face alone. He and Hitch fought because of the Method style, but the conflict between director control and intuitive performance makes the film better. You can almost feel Clift mentally struggling with Hitch's probing camera.

3.5 balls out of 4.

I thought it was clever as a nickname. Try explaining to them that GBU is possibly a prequel. Heads explode.

The Faces tapes may have one or two things different from the LDs but otherwise should be exactly the same. I have both, and really haven't had any reason to pull em off the shelf in a while. (My VCR is pretty crappy.) The Faces Widescreen box is really great though. One of my favorites that just looks fantastic on the shelf.

It looked more like a freaking lobster to me. ;)

Joe, Manco, Blondie, Mr. Cheroot-it doesn't matter...unless you're talking to someone who weirdly thinks each film and character are separate.

Probably from the 50's era fine grain print made for TV printings they have as the best surviving copy. IIRC this is what has been said is their best source.

New trailer up slightly edited to be correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=56BCZTkJmeM

Confirms Raiders will use the 4K restoration I had a few issues with, and deleted scenes. The trailer has bits from the deleted swordsman fight and looks like the scenes on the SW blu-ray, probably scanned from 35mm elements laying in the vault.

Why the silly book packaging? It's bound to be more expensive to produce than using super cheap thinpacks, and the discs are bound to be damaged. Well, I don't care what happens to the Skull disc.

Whoops, did I pull an Entwistle and use it for skeet shooting...oh dear...

It was. Do it if you ever can. You can also easily tell the difference between new and original, like THX. The 2003 English extended GBU did not seem all that impressive on the big screen, whereas Fistful was stunning on a smaller screen in the same venue. (Restored in Italy to boot.) Duck, You Sucker looked great in size but I wasn't too happy with MGM's restoration work or the 5.1 mix. Best of all was the print of For a Few which was so degraded that the theater had posted signs offering money back to those who didn't like degraded prints. That movie truly came alive, even with one shot gone pink, damage popping up, and the mono being degrade so that the opening  half was too low and the ending was ear piercingly loud. Sadly, this was MGM's best archive print and after their Leone work had been completed.

THX should look more like The IPCRESS File than AOTC. Maybe a slightly better or faster stock in 6 years, but otherwise rather similar.

Is it bad that I still have that and the widescreen version? ;)