criterionforum.org

Although Amazon specifically mentions that the copies they sell are DVD-Rs, in case that's a deal breaker.

Tommaso wrote:

Ashirg wrote:Also, I think these pressed discs are exclusive to Warner Archive web site, as places like Amazon or other retailers likely will have DVD-R.

Is this confirmed? If so, very bad news for international customers. I was thinking of ordering Forbidden Hollywood 4&5, but as Warners don't sell internationally, I would have to go through a third-party seller. But shelling out funds for DVD-R remains out of the question for me.

Movies Unlimited also carry all of the Archive stuff and are a reliable seller.

I'm excited about a new DVD(-R) print of Lili. I never watched the current DVD because I was put off by the screenshots, I only ever watched clips on Youtube.

zedz wrote:

Tommaso wrote:

Ashirg wrote:Also, I think these pressed discs are exclusive to Warner Archive web site, as places like Amazon or other retailers likely will have DVD-R.

Is this confirmed? If so, very bad news for international customers. I was thinking of ordering Forbidden Hollywood 4&5, but as Warners don't sell internationally, I would have to go through a third-party seller. But shelling out funds for DVD-R remains out of the question for me.

Movies Unlimited also carry all of the Archive stuff and are a reliable seller.

Import cd's is probably the best place for non US customers to buy Archives stuff.Forbidden Hollywood 4&5 are currently $30 each.

Hmmm I tried to pre-order Lili and its charging me $5.00 for shipping! I thought it was $2.50 flat rate for a single purchase...

Warners officially doesn't give a shit, vol. 547: Red Dust now an Archive title

Renoir's This Land is Mine was released this past Tuesday as a TCM exclusive for the time being.

Does the fact that it's not identified as "MOD" indicate that it might be a pressed disc?

Warner Archive has a nice list of all their releases, sortable by disc release date, original movie release year, title, and genre.

Just got my 5 Warner Archive purchases and oddly enough the worst looking transfer is one of the remastered ones, While The City Sleeps. The source material is generally better (and newer by a decade or two) but this is undermined by the transfer.

It looks terribly soft. I heard the UK DVD release (on a boutique label) looks better, but that one's an open matte and I wanted the correct aspect ratio (something like 2.1:1). Honestly, I'm wondering if I can take the UK DVD, rip it, slice off the top and bottom, and just expand it to the right pixel dimensions and have it look better than the Warner Archive DVD.

The other ones I got were The Great Garrick, Stars on My Crown, Strawberry Blonde and Confessions of a Lotus Eater.

While the City Sleeps was pretty clearly shot for full frame and cut down in post, to my eye- it doesn't have the insane headroom that Beyond a Reasonable doubt does in full frame, and as I understand it the documentation supports the 1:33 framing as Lang's intent. In any case, the UK DVD looks really good.

The short answer:

The question before the jury was: Do SuperScope prints of Lang’s While the City Sleep (1956) faithfully reflect his intentions? The answer I settled on was: Probably not.

](*,)

Should've gone with The Merry Widow...

Yes, you should have as it is one of the best if not the best silent film ever.

Thanks for the salt, knives.

You can have some more if you would like.

Aspect ratio is probably my least favorite topic of discussion, it's important but incredibly irritating that it exists as an issue.

DVDBeaver picks up on this in some of its screencaps, but the Super Scope transfer on the Warner Archive has more picture on the left and right sides of the screen. This is significant because it shows why the 2.1:1 transfer isn't quite as disastrous as I thought it would be, and furthermore why I wasn't able to replicate a satisfactory 1.66 or 1.78:1 image from the 1.33:1 UK DVD.

I started watching the Warner Archive DVD and when it gets to the shot Bordwell uses of Vincent Price on the phone with his butler in the background, I was surprised that his head was completely intact. It's a tight composition, but it's all there with a tiny bit of space above it, no clipping or cropping of any kind. Bordwell's 2.1:1 recreation clips his head because his source image had less picture on the sides - the extra real estate makes a significant difference if the ratio is kept exact.

This is just an observation, not an endorsement of the Warner Archive DVD - a vast majority of the compositions seen in its transfer still work great in Super Scope, but there are a few shots that look pretty awkward. More problematic is the picture quality - not sure if it was taken from a source that was essentially a blown-up 2.1:1 dupe, but it does look softer and less detailed.

Robert Harris on the restored Red Dust, which was hinted at in the Feltenstein interview. FWIW, I picked it up in the recent "5 for $50" sale. The copy I received is a pressed DVD and it looks every bit as good as Harris says. I'd rate the restored audio a little higher, if only because every version of the film I've seen prior to this sounded as if it had been recorded in the bottom of a barrel through several layers of cotton batting.

Yeah, I can see 1.85 being spot on. To me, the awkward compositions came mostly in two-person (or possibly group) shots. One major exception: the close up of Barrymore (the killer) while he's watching Andrews' newscast slices off a bit of the chin and the top of his head, not in a way that comes off as a good extreme close-up, so that alone could make the case for 1.85 (or 1.78) to 1.

But I recall the two-person shots, specifically some over-the-shoulder shots towards the beginning, as being the most awkward. One that sticks out in my memory is when Andrews' character is alone with the soon-to-be-deceased owner of the media organization. I'd have to see it again, but during that shot, one of them repositions themselves in the frame, and once that happens, it seems to 'right' the composition, but it's pretty awkward to have that.

Come to think of it, there's another shot or two that's like that except they involve only one person in close-up: when the shot starts, it's a bit off, and then you notice the camera or subject moving just a bit, and suddenly the composition looks 'right,' but it's pretty weird and unusual for that to happen.

Giving the last of the Warner Archive purchases I made a full viewing now. The Great Garrick is excellent, I really need to familiarize myself with James Whale's work because he's obviously done so much more than Frankenstein. This looks like a pretty so-so transfer of a decent print, contrast is nice but the details aren't so great. Part of it may be the source, but this is also a film from the '30s. The terrible thing about this disc is the soundtrack - you can barely make out any of the words. I tried cranking the volume, but it's really a poor soundtrack. Imagine leaving a cassette in a car parked out in the sun in the middle of summer for a couple of weeks. The soundtrack is kind of like that. It would be great if they could redo it from a better source.

hearthesilence wrote:I really need to familiarize myself with James Whale's work because he's obviously done so much more than Frankenstein.

Please watch Show Boat next time it pops up on TCM (which is every few months). I saw it in theatres a few years back and was quite moved by the experience (and redefining my considerable admiration for Whale). At the time the print looked immaculate with wonderful sound. Since then (about 4 years now) I've been awaiting a WB release but nothing's come about.

Professor Wagstaff wrote:

hearthesilence wrote:I really need to familiarize myself with James Whale's work because he's obviously done so much more than Frankenstein.

Please watch Show Boat next time it pops up on TCM (which is every few months). I saw it in theatres a few years back and was quite moved by the experience (and redefining my considerable admiration for Whale). At the time the print looked immaculate with wonderful sound. Since then (about 4 years now) I've been awaiting a WB release but nothing's come about.

I'll second this recommendation. Although I've never seen it theatrically, I own the Criterion LD and have watched it many times. Paul Robeson is nothing short of phenomenal in it.

Professor Wagstaff wrote:

hearthesilence wrote:I really need to familiarize myself with James Whale's work because he's obviously done so much more than Frankenstein.

Please watch Show Boat next time it pops up on TCM (which is every few months). I saw it in theatres a few years back and was quite moved by the experience (and redefining my considerable admiration for Whale). At the time the print looked immaculate with wonderful sound. Since then (about 4 years now) I've been awaiting a WB release but nothing's come about.

The Great Garrick is possibly his masterpiece, and Remember Last Night? is still one of the best times I've ever had with a pre-code picture. Less enthusiastic about The Kiss Before the Mirror, but his pictorial sense is still on ample display.

tarpilot wrote:Remember Last Night? is still one of the best times I've ever had with a pre-code picture.

It was released well over a year after the Code was enforced, though it does sometimes feel like a pre-Code.

Yikes! Score one for double-checking.