MGM/Warner October Horror; Midnite Movies, Val Lewton, Demon Seed and more (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Eric
What we DO know is that DVD-18's often do not play, while DVD-9's almost always DO.

 

[Herb Kane]

I really don’t think this is a fair comment. If we’re to stick to baseball analogies, this comment is analogous to A-Rod being benched for the year and then boasting about not having struck out all season.

You have to actually get to the plate to strike out.

Fox and Paramount release only a fraction of what WB does in terms of catalogue titles. While WB released more than 200 catalogue titles last year, Fox released only a fraction of that amount and Paramount even less than that. Truth be told, Paramount doesn’t have much left while Fox relies upon a Ouija Board to determine what Studio Classics and Noirs they are going to release. And then, after the letters have been spelled out, they change their minds at the eleventh hour.

Unfortunately, I only received the Lewton set for review on Monday and have not yet a chance to look through it – that’s my weekend job. However, given the commonly known fact of the surviving elements being less than ideal, surely no one expected costly full blown restorations on this set…? I’m not saying the set doesn’t deserve it, but I can’t imagine Warner would even come close to recouping their monetary output.

I will say this; in a thread of 5 pages and over 120 posts, if we can only come up with handful of WB disappointments, that’s a batting average I’d be proud of.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Herb.

I'll have my set tomorrow and plan on starting off with THE BODY SNATCHER, which I watched last year the via washed out VHS. A couple here has said it's "dark" so I'm curious to see how dark it actually is or if we're just not use to seeing it that way due to prior releases.

It's common knowledge RKO prints are in very bad shape so we shouldn't expect these to be perfect. The same with last year's FREAKS.

 

[Kevin M]

I was going to mention Freaks as an example of how WB doesn't half-ass things when it comes to catalog titles, I think considering the material they had to work with that Freaks looks remarkable. WB would be on top of my list of studios when it comes to respecting their classic films & trying to give them as good a DVD representation when at all possible....and more often than any other studio.

 

[Bob McLaughlin]

I watched the rest of "Cat People" last night. Unfortunately, there are several instances of white splotchiness that is obviously a source film defect. It's frustrating because most of the scenes look fine, but then there are occasional white splotchies, so it is a bit distracting. I guess this was the best they could do with the source material, but I get the feeling this is something Criterion would have fixed digitally, but Warner let it slide. Maybe it was unfixable, I don't know. It doesn't "ruin" the film for me but it is a bit jarring.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

The CAT PEOPLE films look quite nice to my eye, though a shade soft. They're certainly not overly dark. Haven't made it to the Karloff films yet, though. One thing to remember was that these movies were made on the ultra-cheap as an effort to keep RKO out of bankruptcy. There are serious limitations to the source material inherent in their filming (which actually gives them much of their charm). In any event, considering their history I think these two look more than acceptable.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Sorry folks but THE BODY SNATCHER looks very natural to me. Is is dark? Yes because it was suppose to be dark. This picture isn't overly dark due to a bad transfer. If you want to see a bad overly dark transfer then pick us some budget titles from Alpha, Brentwood or their ilk. The film is suppose to be dark and when compared to the VHS you can tell how much better this picture is. A lot of the shadow detail is missing from the VHS but it's all here. Just look at the scene where Karloff and Lugosi finish things off. The only thing lighting the room is a small candle on the wall. Look at this on the VHS and it would seem they've got a spotlight on them because the contrast is so high it takes away any shadow detail.

The first two minutes of the print are in rough shape but the specs pretty much end right there. Again, just compare it to the VHS in terms of print damage. The age of the source is still very clear but the "darkness" people are talking about appears to be caused by seeing the film the correct way for the first time. The Val Lewton films are all "darkly" made but previous versions of TBS have been way too light. To me, it's looks correct here. The darkness looks just like other RKO "B" pictures of the day.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I don't agree with you at all regarding THE BODY SNATCHER, Michael. I've already watched Warner's new discs for ISLE OF THE DEAD and THE SEVENTH VICTIM, in addition to skimming through I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE. Those films look the way BODY SNATCHER ought to. During the credits sequence of THE BODY SNATCHER there is an illustration in the background, and a lot of detail is left muted in darkness (though you can see it on other home video releases). What's the point of having an illustration if you cannot see it? Of course you were meant to be able to see the details of this illustration.

I've already watched some of these DVDs, and this Val Lewton set overall is not of the caliber of the previous Warner collections (nice cue marks here and there too), and a few buyers at various places have echoed this. I understand your devotion to WB knows no bounds, so I figured you'd come up with "it's supposed to be dark like that". I don't agree, and both of my other sources look better for this film. They are NOT "too bright". They are just right.

If the picture looks right to you, of course you're entitled. More power to you. It doesn't look right to me, though it's not unwatchable or anything.

 

[Michael Elliott]

If the print was overly dark that would effect the lighter scenes in the movie as well. They don't. If people prefer the shadow detail to be washed out then I'd highly recommend the VHS. It's easy to tell the difference between a dirty transfer, a overly dark transfer and a transfer that has proper black levels. The black levels are very rich with detail here, unlike what you've watched the past 20 years on a VHS.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I haven't seen the VHS in years. I used to have a Nostalgia Merchant version of the VHS (which looked better than the new DVD, from memory) but recently I have been bouncing back and forth from a Hong Kong DVD to a DVD-R I purchased, seemingly taken off the laserdisc. Both of these discs look better to me. Of course, I can always watch them -- but I was hoping the "official Warner edition" would be the one keeper.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Well, I went through the VHS and (to me) there's no doubt the new DVD is the way to go. The difference in the two was like color vs. B&W. The old video had NO shadow detail, no deep blacks or anything. Yes, the opening was crystal clear but I have a hard time believing this thing shouldn't have any blacks in them like the VHS.

Now, if we're to say the correct transfer should be somewhere between that old VHS and the DVD....I'd buy that. However, with the two options I'm going with the DVD. It's certainly darker than we've seen before but it should be. To me, if it was a bad transfer the darkness would look even worse on the scenes taking place in the light but they don't. The light scenes contain very good whites and the greys in the background also look great.

This is far from a flawless transfer but it'll be up to the viewers eye on what they prefer.

I also watched THE LEOPARD MAN and THE GHOST SHIP this afternoon and was happy with both transfers. Both of these had more visible print damage in a few scenes but overall they were a bit more sharp than TBS. It was my first time seeing both films and really enjoyed them.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Now watch the Hong Kong DVD and the Laserdisc and let us know what you think.

I've already watched CAT PEOPLE, THE SEVENTH VICTIM, and ISLE OF THE DEAD. I have watched both I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE and BEDLAM with the commentary tracks. All 5 of these have a more proper level of black/gray, and none of them are too dark nor too bright. They are the proper way THE BODY SNATCHER appears on my Hong Kong DVD and the laserdisc print. From the very second we see the RKO logo on Warner's new BODY SNATCHER, it is a too-dark print from the get-go. Only this one film.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Hi, Joe.

Is there any chance that you could post some screen capture comparisons of your Hong Kong DVD, Laserdisc DVD-R and new Warner DVD via Image Shack or Photo Bucket?

 

[Michael Elliott]

Joe, explain this one to me. If the print is overly dark, why isn't that the case in the light scenes? If the print was overly dark that darkness would appear on white shirts, the daytime scenes and even facial tones. The dark transfer would hurt the lighter scenes a lot more than the nighttime scenes.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Gordon - I'm afraid I'm a complete novice when it comes to posting screen shots and images. I would be more than happy to do so if I could, as seeing is believing. Maybe someone else could, at least of the laserdisc.

Michael - Yes, the film is also too dark in the "light scenes". Especially when compared to the LD and the Hong Kong disc. The very first scenes of the film are "lighter day scenes," and it's evident. Then again, it was evident to me straight from the RKO logo and main titles. You think the film looks fine, I do not. All I can tell you is that other people here (and on the Classic Horror Film Board) also think the picture's too dark. Some may do comparisons and agree with you.

To each his own.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

No worries, Joe.

Just out of interest: Which disc is the 53-minute documentary on?

 

[alistairKerr]

The documentary - "Shadows In the Dark" is on the disc with "The 7th Victim".
Hope this helps.

Alistair (another Scottish DVD collector here!)

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

We're slowly taking over the World, Alistair!

Thanks for the info. Where in Scotland are you, btw?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I watched I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE last night (which is a well-regarded film in the genre), but unfortunately the print utilized was riddled with stains, scratches, and other imperfections. I was so glad Warner was issuing this set, but this one has proven to be nowhere near the standard of their other good work on the classics. With all this and the recent Universal DVD-18 fiascos, maybe this is a sign that the studios are finally holding out on us while saving more exceptional quality for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD?

 

[Michael Elliott]

Having watched every film in the set, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE was certainly the worst. I was rather shocked at how many scenes had water damage to them. I remember this film always being riddled with specs, scratches and that sort of stuff but never these water damage.

The rest of the films looked fine, although BEDLAM is a bit soft throughout. That results in the black levels not being were they should and the contrast is sometimes set too high, which can be seen in the shiny faces.


I'd suggest listening to the commentary track or other interviews with Wise. There's a night and say difference between this DVD and that HK boot (which it has to be since Warner owns this worldwide) and the VHS. Wise mentions that this was meant to be a very dark movie. He wanted the atmosphere to be dark and cold and this coldness is what you see in the "lighter" scenes in the movie. The nighttime scenes are black. The daytime scenes are not meant to be a bright, sunny day. The day scenes are meant to have a gray tone ala a not so bright day. More of a "before the storm", gloomy look.

With a overly dark transfer you would lose all the picture in these "gray" scenes. Again, go look at something like THE APE MAN or a budget release that really has a dark transfer. The overly done blacks in the transfer will leak onto the whites of the film to the point where you can even tell if that person is wearing a white shirt or not. The blackness levels will get rid of any facial detail. After seeing that take another look at THE BODY SNATCHER. Not once does that dark transfer take away any facial detail. Not once does that dark transfer attach itself to any of the white clothing (or the white horse) to where you can obviously see what's being worn. A dark transfer isn't just going to be dark but it's going to take the detail out of the whites, which isn't the case here.

There's no denying this transfer is a lot darker compared to the VHS and I'm guessing LD. Again, it's really a night and day difference but after hearing Wise there's no doubt this thing was meant to look this way. Certain people aren't going to like this look but they didn't like the correct colors on HOUSE OF WAX either so.....what can we do?