Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

A few words about...™ A New Leaf -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 of 4 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris


  • 7,883 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 07 2012 - 03:09 PM

Elaine May's A New Leaf (1970), looks like a typical 1970 production.  A bit flat, with open bright lighting.   There has been a fan base for this film, and no decent home video release in decades.   Olive's Blu-ray of the Paramount film is a decent, but lackluster catalog title.   Occasional dupes, which I presume were in place originally, aren't terribly problematic.  Grain seems natural, and color is occasionally bland.  But that's the film.   What is a bit disturbing here, is Olive's choice, once again, to not digitally clean their HD master, which could easily have been made far better.  The titles, which are against a black background, are riddled with constant minus density.  Just not pretty, especially when one is viewing two layers of dirt.  One of the original negative, and another on the IP.   Image - 3   Audio - 5

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

#2 of 4 OFFLINE   JoHud



  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted October 07 2012 - 03:29 PM

I think this was the last major 70s Walter Matthau feature left unreleased. Couldn't wait to pick this one up. Of the 60s, there's still The Secret Life of an American Wife left unreleased and Goodbye Charlie in which he plays a supporting role. I also though it just looked decent and while I don't think the film was visually all that great to begin with, there was some room for improvement.

#3 of 4 OFFLINE   theonemacduff


    Second Unit

  • 353 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2010
  • Real Name:Jon Paul
  • Locationthe wet coast

Posted October 16 2012 - 10:51 PM

Depends on what counts as a "release." Charley Varrick, a personal fave of mine since I saw it in a second run house a year after its theatrical release, has only been released on DVD, sfaik, in an open-matte version, i.e., full frame, where in the theatre it was 1.85:1. I don't count that as a serious release. Universal did the same thing with another great film, which I also refused to buy on DVD, Fred Schepisi's Iceman, and they did it again with Freidkin's Sorcerer. So I don't count those as serious releases, eccentric that I am. What I would really like to see, of course, is Charley Varrick on blu ray. I like smart films about smart people doing jobs they know how to do, and doing them well. Even if they are bank robbers.

#4 of 4 OFFLINE   ChristophNestel



  • 16 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 17 2006

Posted August 23 2013 - 11:16 PM

This new presentation leaves a lot to be desired in terms of claryfying the myths about Elaine Mays long-lost director's cut. It would have been a good opportunity at least to solve the most important question unanswered so far: Is the original 3-hour rough-cut/director's cut and/or its elements still in existance somewhere today?In terms of the film in its present form I can say it's a hilarious comedy and great fun to watch. The studio cut works fine until the last 20 minutes, when it's just totally unbelievable und unmotivated that Henry changes his mind and saves Henrietta. At least there would have been a need in more properly preparing this end in the editing process.Thus, one could only make up minds what might have been. But the idea of Henry being a twice-time killer getting away with it (against the production code) definitely reveals the possibility of an even better film just simplyfied and softened in its dark tones by Paramount.Does anybody know more? Has anybody ever had the possibility to ask Elaine May about the whereabouts of the missing footage?Will we ever get answers to these questions:1) Does Paramount have Elaine Mays original 3-hour rough-cut still in its vaults?2) Did perhaps Elaine May herself save and store elements of her original cut?3) Did Olive at least ever try to get hold on the director's cut and approach Elaine May in contributing to the release?

Edited by ChristophNestel, August 23 2013 - 11:18 PM.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users