DVD Review HTF Review: The Marx Brothers - Silver Screen Collection (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Adkins]

I'm glad to hear the audio is improved for the new set. That was my biggest gripe with the Image releases. The audio in Duck Soup is clearly out of sync in spots and the dialogue is very hard to hear on several of the Image releases.

I'll be getting the new set.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

This weekend our local paper, The Asbury
Park Press, ran a full page story on the
Marx Brothers DVD set. Basically, the reviewer
felt that Universal did an subpar job citing
that the transfer was no better than the VHS
versions that have been out. Furthermore, the
paper chastised the studio for the lack of extras
explaining that the availability of the Today Show
interviews were only a result of the MCA/NBC merger.

I am very thankful to Universal for the support
they have shown this forum, but I do join others
in saying that this was perhaps the studio's most
important classic release and more could have been
done to make it on par with Warner's treatment.

I cannot comment on the transfer first-hand, and I
admit that up front. I have had the boxed set
sitting in my Home Theater room for about a week
now and have had no time to even open it and give
it a look. For this reason I'll be looking forward
to reading your opinions on this set come Tuesday.

 

[John Hodson]

I said earlier that I wouldn't comment on this set again and I won't. However, on a more general note, I do find it very sad that Universal consistenty fail to produce the goods when dealing with their back catalogue. Their recent noir films were not a patch on the standard of transfers found in the Warners noir box films.

Of course, we aren't talking about the same films, so the comparison is possibly unfair. But we do have examples of the same film, albeit in different regions.

Here are screenshots of films released in R1 by Warners and by Universal in R2 from dvdbeaver.com:

Suspicion
Foreign Correspondent

I'm hopping mad with Universal because they don't seem to achieve anything near the same results as Warners (or Fox or Paramount), and I positively fizz when the more important films they hold are seemingly denied the proper tender loving care they deserve. Is this because of the elements they have, do they simply lack the technology...or the will. Do they set their standards lower - or is it because, sometimes, they simply aren't trying? I would love to know the answer.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This weekend I had a full plate when it came to dvd viewing. I had other dvds that were higher on my priority list to watch, but I was able to watch the recent and prior releases of Duck Soup from beginning to end. I found the Universal release had more detail and was not as dirty as the Image release. I heard significant improvement with the sound. Also, I compared the running times and found the latest release about 20 seconds longer than the Image dvd. The Universal dvd timed out at 1.08.41

Last night, after watching Animal Crackers, I started to compare it to the prior release and though, it looked better than the Image dvd, it seem the difference between the two, wasn't as great as it was with Duck Soup. Tonight, I'll try to do further comparison between those two dvds and if I have time, I'll try to the same with another Marx movie.







Crawdaddy

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Crawdaddy,

I am sure I speak for everyone when I say
that we look forward to further observations.

I just need to find some time to sit and
watch these myself.

 

[Herb Kane]

Ron, just out of curiosity… as you might be familiar with the writing and style of this reviewer, but does he/she review a fair amount of classic film material…? I only ask because I see an inordinate amount of reviews being written or posted lately, where it seems the same level of standards for a recent production is held for a film produced from the 40’s or 50’s (or in the case of the Marx films, the 30’s). I regularly see comments like “the image was amazing” or “the audio was flawless”, yet they’ll be awarded scores like 3.5 out of 5 etc etc. If the audio from a 1940 film sounds flawless, shouldn’t it be awarded a near perfect score…? Yet there is still a propensity (at least for some) to compare the monaural audio of a classic film to a Master and Commander. Not very fair and certainly not very realistic.

In the case of the Marx Brothers set, I don’t know. I suspect very few (if any) here, do know. These movies are amongst the funniest films ever produced and I suspect as a result through rigorous wear and tear, have deteriorated a great deal over the years. Never mind, the fact these aren’t even Universal films – they were Paramount productions. Remember there are other Paramount films in the same boat that are every bit as highly regarded as the Marx films – The Lost Weekend and Double Indemnity are two Paramount films that quickly come to mind. Although TLW shows better on DVD than that of DI (the Image release), it’s not without many problems. The transfer of ownership/storage/handling issues may account for what is now being witnessed. Regardless of the amount of money spent, there is a possibility (probability…?) these will never look like some of the gorgeous discs that have been recently released. Would it be reasonable to expect a company to invest scads of dollars in full blown restorations only to anticipate a loss? Let’s face it; these aren’t going to sell like their upcoming The Bourne Supremacy discs. If they took a hit for every classic release, what you think the chances would be of getting future and regular releases of catalogue titles…?

I don’t even have the set yet, but I will this time tomorrow and I am pleased as punch that Universal has released it. Did they do the best they could…? I’m not sure we’ll ever know, but early indications show there are indeed improvements over the initial Image releases. At this stage I’m willing to give Universal the benefit of the doubt. They are a company that has been in trouble over the past couple of years and after the NBC deal, they have quickly responded with a string of classic and catalogue releases, some highly sought after TV to DVD product and their new releases are usually as good as any of the big 4 or 5.

My point…? Beyond the fact that I’m not really sure that I have one, is that we have been spoiled by many of the recent classic releases and that holding each and every one of them to the expected levels of Casablanca SE, Bad and the Beautiful and Now, Voyageur is in my opinion, just not very realistic. There are just too many factors to consider.

BTW, Great review Jason - thank you.

Herb.

 

[John Hodson]

There's no one here who holds those expectations, surely Herb?

 

[Robert Crawford]

John,
I'm not so sure about that....... Also, Herb makes a valid point about the film elements. We as consumers don't have any idea about the condition of those elements. However, we can assume that the original negative is in terrible shape and possibly gone forever!? Furthermore, the intermediate elements (FG and DN) are probably in poor shape too. Don't really know for sure, only Universal can answer those questions, but these films have been in great demand for over 70 years with a constant flow of rereleases.

Edit:
One more thing, I also don't have any idea if Univeral put their best effort into this dvd release or spent the necessary monies necessary to produce the best product possible.






Crawdaddy

 

[John Hodson]

I think we'll know a darn sight more about Universal's abilities when the W.C. Fields set reviews come rolling in; I don't suppose anyone has seen anything?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I disagree to a point because those titles are probably in the same boat as the Marx titles just because they weren't originally Paramount releases. However, it will be interesting to see how they match up with some of their horror titles that are from the same time period and have already been released on dvd.

 

[ArthurMy]

I have said since the beginning of this thread (go back and look) that no one here knows what Universal is dealing with in terms of the elements on these films. I'll say it again - in the case of The Coconuts, when it was reissued in the seventies my memory is the negative was almost unusable or lost and that they'd had to reconstruct the film using a variety of prints. Obviously, with Duck Soup they had something that was better than what Image used. I'm glad Robert Crawford has now confirmed what I and a few others said days ago - that there is significant improvement in Duck Soup, both visually and audio-wise.

And I agree with Herb - I'd bet that the reviewer that Ron was citing is a kid who doesn't really understand anything about older films. In order to have the results of a Casablanca or any of those Warner titles, you have to have the elements to work from. If you have decent elements, wonders can be worked from them. If you don't have decent elements then only so much can be done.

 

[Randy A Salas]

I asked Bill Marx, the son of Harpo who appears in one of the three "Today Show" segments on the DVD, about the general lack of extras on the collection for my write-up in the Star Tribune. His reply:

"Though there is limited history about the brothers in what I think is an absolutely terrific package, there are so many other sources available around to pursue for additional info if one is so inclined. I am just so very happy that those lovable lunatics are back at last and running amok through the DVD format."

 

[MarkBourne]

From Dave Kehr's review in the New York Times (reg. req'd.):

 

[Robert Crawford]

After further review, I'm going to backpedal a little bit by saying that Universal's Animal Crackers is an improvement both visually and audio-wise over the Image disc. I went through each chapter comparing both discs to each other and found the Universal disc more detailed with less dirt and scratches. Don't get me wrong, the Universal disc still had plenty of dirt and scratches as well as the picture being soft in certain scenes throughout the movie, but it is definitely better than the Image disc. Also, the sound was not muted like it is on the Image release.






Crawdaddy

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Crawdaddy,

Great news!

Also in reply to some questions....

I have no idea who this reviewer is. He seemed
to be knowledgeable of Marx Brothers history so
I wouldn't race to label the reviewer a "kid."

In any event let me just say that I hold more
regard to a review from you guys than someone who
writes for a newspaper.

 

[Vincent L]

I owned the english R2 Universal box set who contains Duck Soup, Animal Crackers, Horse Feathers and Monkey Businness and the picture is bad.
So I ordered the R1 box set, hopping that the quality will be better.

Concerning the extras, Universal did nothing comparing to Warner Bros. So it's a shame.

 

[Jonathan_Clarke]

My wife just got me a copy at Costco.

I'm going home now to pop it in. I only had the Image "Duck Soup" before so I'll start with a different film and put this controversy behind me.

Maybe Monkey Business.

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

They don't look great, but they look about as good as they're going to. Having seen new 35 mm prints of some of the early Paramount films (not these, but from around the same time), I think the way the films look on this DVD is up to that standard -- a good print of an old, battered film for which the original negative is lost. However, I haven't seen the Image releases so I can't say how they compare. But this doesn't look like a sub-standard release to me, just a release of films that are in less-than-optimal condition.

This is why I wish Universal had created commentary tracks -- it helpt to have someone explain why the films are in problematic condition and why there are awkward jump cuts in the surviving prints of Animal Crackers and Horse Feathers. On WB's A Night at the Opera DVD, the disappointment of the missing scenes is at least partly made up for by Leonard Maltin, who explains what we're missing and why they were cut. Just having a guy on an alternate track to tell us about the missing line from "Hooray For Captain Spaulding" would be a help.

Still, as one who missed these movies the last time they were on DVD, I'm very happy to have this set.

 

[MarkBourne]

In the FWIW dept., I received the set today and am now sitting at my workplace desk with Animal Crackers running on my laptop next to my office computer. I'm only at Chico's "If we don't play, that-a runs into money" bit, and already I can see significant improvement over my beloved Image edition. The picture appears smoother and cleaner, and the audio through my headphones is quite a bit cleaner than I anticipated. The source print isn't as scratched and blemished as before. It's not a "pristine" Criterion-like print, natch, but I'm perfectly satisfied.

If the other films in this set display a similar level of improvement, this set will rank high on my Best of the Year list.

Hooray hooray hooray. "As a smile played around his lips..."

Update:
Now, hours later and back at home, I'm able to make an A/B comparison. So I'm going to soften the enthusiasm of my post above, but only somewhat. With Animal Crackers at least, the source print appears to be the same as the Image edition (no surprise), though the transfer is better, so the b/w grayscale is a bit more solid and smoother, plus the hairline scratches, blemishes, etc. aren't as stark in the new release. The new audio is stronger, befitting a slight uptick from 1.0 mono to 2.0 mono.

Again, FWIW.

 

[Doug Otte]

I just received my set yesterday. I've only had the chance to go through about half of Animal Crackers. I haven't seen this film since it was re-released (when - late 70s or early 80s?). It looks and sounds pretty fair for its age and condition. I had forgotten all the brilliant bits in this one.

I have to say, the package is VERY handsome. From the raised lettering on the outer cover, to the beautiful photos inside, and the booklet w/ tidbits about each film...I too would have liked restored films and more extras, but I'm very happy to have these films in such a nice set.

Doug