Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about…™ Invaders from Mars – in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Peter Apruzzese]

Ronsonol lighter fluid is the best adhesive remover. Works on most paper without any residue.

 

[uncledougie]

I’m not sure what the rationale was using this round sticky disc Ignite chose. It was on my 4K copy but not the Blu-ray, and it wasn’t like the Blu-ray was easily sliding out of the slipcase or anything; the fit and friction were enough to prevent that. I’ve had many discs where the overlapping plastic came off easily and with no damage; years back some DVD sticky strips were so firmly stuck, and on three sides at that, it was a multi minute chore to remove them (I recall Paramount DVDs being particularly egregious in this regard), and after I had to use lighter fluid or Goo Gone to remove leftover glue residue - extremely annoying. If the discs are shrink wrapped, why use these discs or strips at all? And if they must be used, there’s some supplier whose product removes quite easily without damage, so why not default to that one? The Ignite disc was somewhere between the two extremes, but stuck pretty tight, and it took patience to avoid damaging the slipcase by creating fingernail marks. Totally unnecessary.

 

[John Maher_289910]

I did use a razor blade to cut the stickers in half and remove the case, but even with that and all the advanced warning, my VERY CAREFUL removal of one of the stickers still resulted in a portion of the cover being ripped. I couldn't care less, but for those that do, it's really a shame. I've never seen that used before. What, exactly, is the point of it? The movie is a revelation, though. It was my Holy Grail, so I lived long enough to see that accomplished!

 

[Robert Harris]

In a world of ”restoration” for publicity’s sake, Invasion is the real thing.

 

[lark144]

In a world of ”restoration” for publicity’s sake, Invasion is the real thing.

Yeah. I received my copy yesterday. Haven't had time to watch the thing yet, though I did pop it in and of course the color is exquisite, with gorgeous and unusual tonalities, like a Picasso blue period infused with Mediterranean light. It would be really beautiful if it wasn't so damn scary. I'd forgotten about the foreshortening of many sets, creating a sense of deep unease, a la CALIGARI. Also, as a six year old, it helped created a deeper sense of identification, for everyone is larger and towers over you, and the sets and camera angles did the same. I read the booklet, so I am now fully aware of all the difficulties, beginning with the reissue, causing clear impossibilities with matching the original negative, making the fact that it looks so good all the more astounding.

 

[Konstantinos]

Will there be a wide release for this?
I see the ebay prices are extreme!
Do Ignite films send internationally?
edit: Oh, I see they don't.

 

[Worth]

Will there be a wide release for this?
I see the ebay prices are extreme!
Do Ignite films send internationally?
edit: Oh, I see they don't.

Arrow is releasing it in the UK, so it should be available there soon.

 

[Dick]

Just to get back to "Invaders From Mars" for a moment... As I noted previously, my 4K copy came with the dreaded stickers on the top and bottom of the sleeve. But I have to say that I have not experienced any major problems removing them without causing any rips or tears to the artwork. All I do is use my fingernail to slowly raise the edge of the sticker, and then very slowly, almost imperceptibly actually, keep a steady pulling on them and after a few minutes, they peel off without much difficulty. I suppose if you are impatient, you can try the hair dryer method or even breathing on it might help.

I have used a thin coating

My order number 1936 arrived just now, a day earlier than the shipping notification estimated. The discs are hard to tell apart from the slipcase, tiny designations on the back cover lower right differentiate the regular Blu-ray from the Ultra HD, but the UHD is in a black case while the Blu-ray is clear. The round sticker on both top and bottom was only on my UHD copy, not that difficult to remove, just be sure and start peeling gently with a fingernail from the inner sleeve area and work it slowly to the edge so as not to pull against the edge of the slipcase and risk tearing it. At long last looking forward to watching this still vivid childhood memory. One discrepancy stands out though: the IMDb running time is 78 minutes, with an alternate version from a British release with added footage listed as 83 minutes. On the disc information for this Ignite release it states a running time of 73 minutes. Is that accurate?

Both the 4K and Blu-ray run 78 minutes.

 

[Dick]

I am happy as hell to have this looking as good as it does. Many thanks to Mr. McQueen & Co.

The one issue I have with the 4K is not limited to this release. The lettering of the opening titles is quite a vivid red on the Blu-ray, but shows as leaning more toward orange on the 4K, regardless of tiny settings. I see this with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS also.

Aside from that, other than a with few shots such as the boy and his friends atop a roof looking at the sand pits through a telescope, I see very little "improvement" in the image quality from the Blu-ray. Nor would I really expect it for a film from 1953 with the kinds of source material problems this one had. Seemed an odd choice for a 4K release from the get-go to me.

Nonetheless, implore you, Scott....don't retire! There are plenty of other classics out there that need your kind of dedication.

 

[Robert Harris]

I am happy as hell to have this looking as good as it does. Many thanks to Mr. McQueen & Co.

The one issue I have with the 4K is not limited to this release. The lettering of the opening titles is quite a vivid red on the Blu-ray, but shows as leaning more toward orange on the 4K, regardless of tiny settings. I see this with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS also.

Aside from that, other than a with few shots such as the boy and his friends atop a roof looking at the sand pits through a telescope, I see very little "improvement" in the image quality from the Blu-ray. Nor would I really expect it for a film from 1953 with the kinds of source material problems this one had. Seemed an odd choice for a 4K release from the get-go to me.

Nonetheless, implore you, Scott....don't retire! There are plenty of other classics out there that need your kind of dedication.

I’ll tell him of your request. Seeing him Sunday. And I believe HTF’s Charles Smith will be there.

 

[jayembee]

I'd forgotten about the foreshortening of many sets, creating a sense of deep unease, a la CALIGARI. Also, as a six year old, it helped created a deeper sense of identification, for everyone is larger and towers over you, and the sets and camera angles did the same.

That's something that made this film stand out for me. For a low-budget film, Menzies really worked the production design.

Oddly enough, though, I was surprised by one thing. My memory of the police sergeant's desk was that it was noticeably taller than it turned out to be. In my mind, I'd had images of him sitting up high and looking down on this young boy. The effect was still there, but the desk wasn't as tall as I remembered it.

 

[timk1041]

I contacted Ignite about the mistake they made sending me both the blu ray and 4K after I cancelled the 4K (which I originally ordered in error) and then just purchased the blu ray. They did give me a refund for the 4K and only charged for the blu ray. However they still sent both. I am sending back the 4K and was told they will pay for the return shipping. Some people would have kept both and only paid for one, but I would rather be honest. It is an inconvenience though to have to make a special trip to the post office. Like others have mentioned we all waited a lot longer than expected to have these sent out.

 

[jayembee]

I had an instance in which I ordered several discs, and the package got lost in the mail. So the vendor sent a replacement shipment. Several days after the replacement arrived, the original shipment showed up. I contacted the vendor, but they said I could just keep the extra set of discs. I felt guilty about doing that, so I just donated the extra discs to my local library.

 

[TheSteig]

I wrote to Ignite about my slipcover and heard back, they are sending requests to their fulfillment center - so they are replacing the ones that were damaged by those sticky pieces of crap. Hopefully they wont use them for the replacement slips !

 

[lark144]

That's something that made this film stand out for me. For a low-budget film, Menzies really worked the production design.

Oddly enough, though, I was surprised by one thing. My memory of the police sergeant's desk was that it was noticeably taller than it turned out to be. In my mind, I'd had images of him sitting up high and looking down on this young boy. The effect was still there, but the desk wasn't as tall as I remembered it.

It also seemed very tall to me when I was a child. But it's possible seeing it on a fifty foot screen and looking up from a deep seat--when I wasn't hiding under it--enhanced that effect.

 

[haineshisway]

I watched this on Monday but haven't had time to get here and post about it. My history with Invaders from Mars dates back to the 1955 reissue on the kiddie matinee circuit. I saw it at the Lido Theater with two other sci-fi movies and I loved it. Then, of course, the many TV showings in black-and-white. When I began collecting 16mm prints in 1975 that was one of my most wanted prints. For years. I finally got one in the late 1970s, a minty fresh Kodachrome print. I watched it many times before finally selling it after selling off my collection. The color on that print was fantastic.

Then we all sadly know the story of what happened to the film and its ownership, so no need to dwell on that here, only to see that all the home video releases were horrible. The laserdisc element was a joke but at least we got the alternate European ending, which I actually provided to them. The DVD was almost worse than the laserdisc. And none of us who knew the story held out any hope that this would ever see the light of day in a good-looking transfer.

Well, now we have it - I have both the 4K and the Blu-ray - I haven't made the leap to a 4K TV so haven't seen it yet. I can't imagine it looks much different than the Blu-ray. Anyway, what Scott has done here really is a miracle. I know some here have said they can't tell the difference between the camera negative stuff and the print stuff but I have to tell you it's as obvious as can be because it can't be otherwise. That said, Scott has done yeoman work on those sequences and they're fine - a bit softer than the rest and frankly a bit too bright. That was the thing about the Kodachrome print, which matches, for example, the contrast and color of the first scenes in the bedroom exactly.

I love the film still, every minute of it. What a treat.

 

[Robert Harris]

I watched this on Monday but haven't had time to get here and post about it. My history with Invaders from Mars dates back to the 1955 reissue on the kiddie matinee circuit. I saw it at the Lido Theater with two other sci-fi movies and I loved it. Then, of course, the many TV showings in black-and-white. When I began collecting 16mm prints in 1975 that was one of my most wanted prints. For years. I finally got one in the late 1970s, a minty fresh Kodachrome print. I watched it many times before finally selling it after selling off my collection. The color on that print was fantastic.

Then we all sadly know the story of what happened to the film and its ownership, so no need to dwell on that here, only to see that all the home video releases were horrible. The laserdisc element was a joke but at least we got the alternate European ending, which I actually provided to them. The DVD was almost worse than the laserdisc. And none of us who knew the story held out any hope that this would ever see the light of day in a good-looking transfer.

Well, now we have it - I have both the 4K and the Blu-ray - I haven't made the leap to a 4K TV so haven't seen it yet. I can't imagine it looks much different than the Blu-ray. Anyway, what Scott has done here really is a miracle. I know some here have said they can't tell the difference between the camera negative stuff and the print stuff but I have to tell you it's as obvious as can be because it can't be otherwise. That said, Scott has done yeoman work on those sequences and they're fine - a bit softer than the rest and frankly a bit too bright. That was the thing about the Kodachrome print, which matches, for example, the contrast and color of the first scenes in the bedroom exactly.

I love the film still, every minute of it. What a treat.

You’re correct. Nothing more that Scott (or anyone) could have done to create a higher quality version. Obviously, without the cooperation via access to further elements.

 

[Dick]

Obviously, without the cooperation via access to further elements.

Cooperation from, perhaps, someone whose initials are Wade Williams? Sorry...I know that's all been done to death. Couldn't help myself. Won't happen again. Until Next time.

 

[Malcolm R]

Thankfully advances in technology are largely making these hoarders of elements irrelevant. As long as some element -- from somewhere -- can be accessed, a decent looking release can usually be created.

 

[Camps]

Considering the cooperation wasn't there for access to all the most perfect elements, this is a remarkable restoration.

Which just underscores my belief that, even when the perfect is unavailable, opportunities should be explored/exploited to produce blu rays from restorations -- or even just upgrades -- of available prints/sources of movies that are screaming for decent, or in many cases, first-time-ever, homevid releases.

No need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good -- or the great, as exemplified by this Invaders release.