johnnyweekes70
-
Posts
775 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by johnnyweekes70
-
-
Absolutely, lzcutter. Feltenstein is an angel of mercy and one can only hope more like him come along to decide what makes it onto our home video libraries.
-
gyspybangles, I agree with your sentiment that these films appeal, or will appeal, to a relatively small audience but I have successfully turned two kids, a 12-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl, both relatively advanced for their ages but products of our media-crazed present, onto old-films via dumb Bob Hope comedies, Errol Flynn dramas and a bunch of diverse films like Stalag 17, Isle of the Dead, and even Torrent with Garbo (courtesy TCM), which Anna adored. I really believe companies like Sony and Universal underestimate the potential for their archive material. There is a market for this stuff. The Dick Tracy series and Mr. Wong series, long in public domain, have been successfully issued, and if a company like Kino can convince people to buy obscure silent stuff like Othello and The Loves of Jeanne Ney, and Warners can excel at putting out anything they feel like, I don't know why Boston **** or the Lone Wolf or even Henry Aldrich never made it to video when countless B movies continually hit the market and are forgotten in a year or less. If there's a market for The A-Team and Wanted: Dead or Alive, there's a market for these vintage crime films. It's reasonable to assume this stuff will be forgotten if it's not available and, if there's a market for The A-Team and Wanted: Dead or Alive, there's a market for these vintage crime films. I don't think the issue revolves around money; the cost of DVD production is, really, minimal when you consider what's out there. Something else is afoot. Even the films Cary Grant made for Paramount, owned by Universal, with minor exceptions, have never been available; it's logical to think that because almost all of Grant's later work was available on VHS and most of it's on on DVD Universal would put that stuff out, but they don't. I could cite numerous examples, but it's all very perplexing to me.
-
The Boston **** films were released, unfortunately, by Columbia, and we know how hard it is to see their most of their '30s and '40s stuff. Along with the Lone Wolf series, maybe one days Sony will put this stuff out.
-
None of those fellows were Warner Brothers contract players, I think. And do you mean Stepin Fetchit?
-
Another good place to find out about upcoming DVD releases is DVD Times (dvdtimes.co.uk). They post all the major labels' upcoming stuff for Region 1 and Region 2. It was there I just found out about Lifeboat, the Bogart We're No Angels, Casanova's Big Night, Red Garters and other soon-to-in-my-collection Paramounts. They also provide nice cover art to get you even more worked up about buying new releases.
-
eyelinerbetty, what you posted is hilariously sound advice. However, some people do need a forum in which to vent their frustrations and people do have the right to complain about whether they like, from silent movies to Jonathan Winters' films, as much as anyone else has the right to complain about others' complaining...I think. If you haven't ever learned a lot about human nature---not saying you haven't coz I don't know you---you'll sure learn a lot more here.
-
I never forget about Carole Lombard, but I also think about Madge Evans from time to time.
-
What does 'classic' mean? When most people call a film 'classic' they're generally referring to something like Citizen Kane or Casablanca. They're not thinking about Havana Widows or Sins of the Children. Most of the films TCM plays aren't classics but are called such because of their age. I think a good film is a good film regardless of when it was made, whether it's in colour or black-and-white, whether it has sound or doesn't, and even bad films can be good films if viewed in the right light. I don't see Moonstruck as being a classic as much I think Greed is but maybe it's just the name Turner Classic Movies that inspires one to think all their programming should consist of vintage titles when it's actually refreshing to see an obscure silent film directly after a modern film. It appears TCM sees little difference between 'classic' films and recent-to-contemporary films. In our visually-hyperactive, consumer-driven society, at least there's the option of TCM (that is, if you live in America) to remind us violent, sexual oriented, special effects-laden drek was not always what filmmaking was about. It's just the 'classic' bit that's confusing.
-
Allen Jenkins is definitely a candidate for me. His little scene in Blessed Event is priceless, as is much of his Warners work. There really were so many that made those films so great. It's hard to name a favourtie, but Jenkins would certainly be top of the list.
-
I get it. I'm sent to an older posting following posting my present posting. Geez, sometimes computers really get my goat.
-
Don't know why that answer was posted here. I can't even find where it was supposed to go!
-
Doctor X.
-
Timothy Bottoms in Bogdonovich's The Last Picture Show.
-
Leo---and I don't think I've personally addressed you before---for all you've written, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion and entitled to post it. Though I entirely disagree with you about the amount of silent movies TCM plays, I was just wondering if it's true that Brad Pitt is/was considering starring in a film of your book?
-
Gene Autrey
-
Ace in the Hole has long been a hole in anybody's Billy Wilder collection and Detective Story has long been in a hole in anybody's William Wyler collection and they've both been holes in anybody's Kirk Douglas collection. Super news that they'll be filled. To see The Strange Love of Martha Ivers in a non-PD print, and a pre-1949 Paramount actually released by Paramount Home Video, will be something else. Great news for collectors.
-
While I was thinking to think of a favorutie taxi-cab scene, this one sprung to mind first. I wouldn't say it's my favoruite taxi-cab scene but more like what I think is the most deranged. It's Martin Scorsese's cameo in Taxi Driver, one of the most disturbing scenes I can think of in film history and complemented by a virtually silent Robert DeNiro. His facial reactions to the ravings of a homicidal maniac are priceless, if you like that sort of thing.
-
Thanks for the heads-up on who might be able to help.
Johnny
-
Billy Wilder's The Major and the Minor.
-
Mongo, I posted the following in General Discussions but I think that was a wrong thing to do because it's not really what the specific forum was discussing. Maybe directing it to you would be more appropriate. It's not exactly trivia or biographical facts but it's something that I'd like to get to the bottom of.
I've long been curious about something I need some clarification with. Hopefully someone can help. I'm aware that certain widescreen processes like VistaVision were shot as 1.33:1 and cropped when exhibited but with many late 1950s and 1960s films released on DVD in both widescreen and standard versions, I notice the standard (formatted to fit the TV) versions contain more area of film on the top and the bottom, with only a smidgen lost on the left and right over the widescreen version. It's very evident on Pork Chop Hill, The Searchers, the 1959 House on Haunted Hill, the recent release of More Dead Than Alive (not the greatest film but a good example) and others. The imdb states Pork Chop Hill's aspect ratio is 1.85:1, yet the top and the bottom of MGM/UA's standard version has more, as if the widescreen version is simply cropped. The Searchers' aspect ratio is listed as 1.75:1 with a negative format of 1.96:1 yet there is a striking amount lost in the widescreen edition glaringly evident in the standard 1.33:1 version. In all cases, there is no evidence of pan and scan since the widescreen editions appear simply to be cropped. I've read on amazon.com that MGM/UA's widescreen release of Lawman is cropped as a reviewer noted the lost detail between his old VHS and the DVD. I never watched Pork Chop Hill or The Searchers on TCM but I would presume they broadcast the widescreen versions. Viewers are missing part of these films' images.
With most 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (and other) ratios, the standard version is obviously just the correct ratio pan and scanned. But with the titles I've mentioned (and, presumably, others), is MGM/UA or WHV or whomever recreating what might have been originally exhibited when a larger area of film was initially shot? If so, would the widescreen edition of William Wyler's The Desperate Hours (and other VistaVision films) cropped?
Johnny
-
I've long been curious about something I need some clarification with. Hopefully someone can help. I'm aware that certain widescreen processes like VistaVision were shot as 1.33:1 and cropped when exhibited but with many late 1950s and 1960s films released on DVD in both widescreen and standard versions, I notice the standard (formatted to fit the TV) versions contain more area of film on the top and the bottom, with only a smidgen lost on the left and right over the widescreen version. I've really noticed it on Pork Chop Hill, The Searchers, the 1959 House on Haunted Hill, the recent release of More Dead Than Alive (not the greatest film but a good example) and others. The imdb states Pork Chop Hill's aspect ratio is 1.85:1, yet the top and the bottom of MGM/UA's standard version has more, as if the widescreen version is simply cropped. The Searchers' aspect ratio is listed as 1.75:1 with a negative format of 1.96:1 yet there is a striking amount lost in the widescreen edition glaringly evident in the standard 1.33:1 version. In all cases, there is no evidence of pan and scan since the widescreen editions appear simply to be cropped. I'd really like to know what's going on here. I've read on amazon.com that MGM/UA's widescreen release of Lawman is cropped as a reviewer noted the lost detail between his old VHS and the DVD. Are we being had or am I missing something?
-
Actually, beware the Image 2-disc version only because of the first disc. The second disc contains the original 1925 version of the film which is quite different than most of us are familiar with, the 1929 reissue version. There's a lot of footage that was either cut or rearranged for the reissue and many of the titles for scenes that did survive the reediting were completely rewritten. Quite fascinating to compare the two.
-
If you want to see the Lon Chaney version, beware the Image-Entertainment 2-disc edition, there's a 'ghosting' effect that was caused by the mastering that is quite annoying and distracting. The previous Image version is still superior, I think, even though the restoration of the Brownlow edition is marvelous. I hope they fix that problem sooner rather than later. Avoid the Herbert Lom Hammer version, the Charles Dance TV version, and the Robert Englund 'version.' They're awful. I haven't seen the new film, but I was never a fan of Andrew Lloyd Weber or, for that matter, anything other than Chaney's version. I like Rains' touch, but that film can't make its mind up whether it wants to be a musical or a thriller. And billing Nelson Eddy over Claude Rains is ridiculous.
-
Yes, it is silly. Some of the things kids watch today simply boggles my mind. And some people think The Simpsons is a kid's show!
Boston Blackie
in General Discussions
Posted
I had no idea The Complete Thin Man Collection was No. 1 on amazon.com. That's extraordinary, but fitting for the quality of those films above current drek and very telling about the demand for such product. I noticed The High and the Mighty was No. 3. Hopefully, it's a sign of things to come. With a slew of Paramount titles like We're No Angels, The Mircale of Morgan's Creek and Detective Story coming out, Universal and Sony really have to get their act together. I am impressed, however, that Sony is putting out a vintage Karloff film, The Man with Nine Lives, for Hallowe'en, but I'd be more impressed if it utilized the space better and was a double-feature disc. I'm not complaining, but I am...