USHE Announcement: Far and Away (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Headline Date: TBA Release Date: 3/4/2014 FAR AND AWAY Product Source: Theatrical Theatrical Studio: Universal Theatrical Release: 5/22/1992 Synopsis: Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman star in the critically-acclaimed romantic adventure, Far and Away, from director Ron Howard. Joseph Donelly (Cruise), a poor tenant farmer, is determined to bring justice to an oppressive landlord, but soon finds himself running away with the man’s daughter (Kidman) to America in a quest for land. In the excitement of the Oklahoma land rush, they realize their dreams of land and life together in this breathtaking epic of love and freedom. Blu-ray Widescreen (61131057) : Disc 1 (Side A) Format: Blu-ray UPC: 0-2519-22260-4-5 Unit Type: Standard Number of Media: 1 Street Date: 3/4/2014 PreOrder Date: Run Time (HH:MM): 2 Hours 20 Minutes Language: English Disc Type: BD-50 (Single Sided) Packaging: Snap Case Layers: Single Audio: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 French European DTS Digital Surround 2.0 Subtitles: English SDH Edition: - Picture: Widescreen Version: Blu-ray + DIGITAL HD with UltraViolet Color/B&W COLOR Rating: PG-13 CARA Rating: - Bonus Features: • Digital Copy of Far and Away (Subject to expiration. Go to NBCUCodes.com for details.) • Includes UltraViolet (Subject to expiration. Go to NBCUCodes.com for details.) • Theatrical Trailer DVD Widescreen (61020212) : Disc 1 (Side A) Format: DVD UPC: 0-2519-20212-2-0 Unit Type: Standard Number of Media: - Street Date: 2/27/2007 PreOrder Date: 2/6/2007 Run Time (HH:MM): 2 Hours 20 Minutes Language: English Disc Type: DVD-9 (Single Sided) Packaging: Snap Case Layers: Single Audio: English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround French Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Spanish Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Subtitles: English SDH Spanish Edition: - Picture: Anamorphic Widescreen Version: - Color/B&W COLOR Rating: PG-13 CARA Rating: [deleted]Some Violence and Sensuality Bonus Features: • Production Notes • Cast and Filmmakers • Theatrical Trailer

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Now Available For Preorder
The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

If they don't scan a 65mm element for this, it will be a travesty.

 

[RolandL]

I'm remember seeing this projected in 70mm. Most of the movie was filmed using an ARRI765 65mm camera. A VistaVision camera for the helicopter shots and a Bell & Howell 35mm EYMO's with anamorphic lenses for some of the scenes in the "land race".

 

[benbess]

A very good film, imho. I think it might be my favorite out of all the movies that Ron Howard has done. But I haven't seen it in a very, very long time. I did see it at the opening in 70 mm, I thought it looked great.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Wasn't there a longer cut made for television?

 

[Escapay]

Wasn't there a longer cut made for television?

Yes. I still have it on VHS somewhere. It was a two-night affair, which made me think it was a television miniseries, as I was 9 at the time. I can't remember much of what was added, and unfortunately, I can't check, as the VHS is at my parents' home out-of-state.

 

[Mark-P]

If they don't scan a 65mm element for this, it will be a travesty.

The currently available HD downloads are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio which would indicate that they were sourced from 35mm elements. I too am hoping that the Blu-ray will be scanned from 65/70mm elements in 2.20:1 AR.

2014 is looking to be another great year for catalog Blu-ray releases!

 

[ahollis]

Any information on if they are using the 65mm? I remember a Showwest Convention when Universal pushed this film. I still have a picture somewhere of Ron Howard, Tom Cruise, the lovely Nicole Kidman and myself from this event. Was more excited being in a pic with Ron Howard than the others at the time. And still am. Still it's a lovely film and if the reviews are good it will be a buy. Just don't Universal on their transfers.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Saw this theatrically in March of 1992 in full 70mm splendor...hope they did a 4k scan from the original camera negative as this movie's visual scope and craftsmanship deserves it!!!

 

[DP 70]

I hope they include the Long 70mm trailer which shows Ron H talking about and showing 65mm.I bet this ends up like Hamlet in 2.35:1.

 

[trajan]

Any information on if they are using the 65mm? I remember a Showwest Convention when Universal pushed this film. I still have a picture somewhere of Ron Howard, Tom Cruise, the lovely Nicole Kidman and myself from this event. Was more excited being in a pic with Ron Howard than the others at the time. And still am. Still it's a lovely film and if the reviews are good it will be a buy. Just don't Universal on their transfers.

There is no way they are going to use 65mm elements . They did'nt use them with AIRPORT. In addition, the film is not very good anyway and I believe did not make all that much money. A waste of the 65mm format.

 

[schan1269]

There is no way they are going to use 65mm elements . They did'nt use them with AIRPORT. In addition, the film is not very good anyway and I believe did not make all that much money. A waste of the 65mm format.

I'm glad somebody else said this sucked first.

 

[Paul Rossen]

There is no way they are going to use 65mm elements . They did'nt use them with AIRPORT. In addition, the film is not very good anyway and I believe did not make all that much money. A waste of the 65mm format.

Waste of the 65mm format? The cinematography in 70mm was quite good. Most of the 70mm 'epics' were not so good either. Too numerous to list, LOA, WSS, MFL excepted.

 

[john a hunter]

Waste of the 65mm format? The cinematography in 70mm was quite good. Most of the 70mm 'epics' were not so good either. Too numerous to list, LOA, WSS, MFL excepted.

When compared to say, Ryan's Daughter, which exploited the format whatever you think of the film, it was a wasted opportunity to revive 70mm.There were also lots of problems with projection where many theatre's had not updated their lenses from the 50's/60's and were unable to take advantage of the increased resolution of film stock and optics that had taken place in the intervening years. To most, it didn't look any better than a good 35mm presentation.

 

[Paul Rossen]

When compared to say, Ryan's Daughter, which exploited the format whatever you think of the film, it was a wasted opportunity to revive 70mm.There were also lots of problems with projection where many theatre's had not updated their lenses from the 50's/60's and were unable to take advantage of the increased resolution of film stock and optics that had taken place in the intervening years. To most, it didn't look any better than a good 35mm presentation.

I saw Far&Away at the same theatre that played Ryan's Daughter. F&A looked fine to me in 70mm. As did Ryan's Daughter. As stated there were many, many 70mm films that were not only a waste of the 70mm format but a waste of time. I don't agree that F&A wasn't worth it. Unfortunately, it didn't become the hit many had hoped but it was still a good effort.

 

[DP 70]

I think Ryans Daughter was the last film to make use of 65mm to it best. Hamlet I think was a waste of 65mmformat, Titanic looked excellent from the 35mm blow up.At Bradford the 70mm on the curve looks really good on the curve screen, they use an Original D-150 lens whichis still ok. When they show 70mm 1.85 like Aliens they do not use the std 70mm lens for the flat screen theyuse a different lens to get a big picture and it looks great.When they projected Khartoum a few years ago they used an original Ultra Panavision and one side was slightysoft due to the lens being foggy.I have have seen lots of 70mm prints over the years one of the best being Hello Dolly at this years Bradford WSWin 70mm DTS on the Cinerama screen it looked and sounded fantastic.

 

[john a hunter]

I saw Far&Away at the same theatre that played Ryan's Daughter. F&A looked fine to me in 70mm. As did Ryan's Daughter. As stated there were many, many 70mm films that were not only a waste of the 70mm format but a waste of time. I don't agree that F&A wasn't worth it. Unfortunately, it didn't become the hit many had hoped but it was still a good effort.

Then you were lucky. Many weren't as here in Sydney, it was shown in a relatively small theatre that had trouble holding focus. Howard apparently here for the opening thought the presentation good. I and many did not. Projection problems plagued the release perhaps because the format had not been used for so long and many theatres were using old equipment. F&A turned out to be a wasted opportunity which only did so so and no where near as expected. Result : no more 70mm.

 

[DP 70]

The last 70mm shown in Londons West End was The Master , when I walked in the foyer there was a notice that the reel 1 was scratched and
you could have your money back if this put you off.

The cert was even shown from a digital projector.

 

[Terry Watson]

Then you were lucky. Many weren't as here in Sydney, it was shown in a relatively small theatre that had trouble holding focus. Howard apparently here for the opening thought the presentation good. I and many did not. Projection problems plagued the release perhaps because the format had not been used for so long and many theatres were using old equipment. F&A turned out to be a wasted opportunity which only did so so and no where near as expected. Result : no more 70mm.