-

Jump to content



Photo
3D Blu-ray Reviews

Dial M for Murder 3D Blu-ray Review



  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#21 of 166 Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member

  • 5,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted October 10 2012 - 02:35 AM

It's some weird techno-crap with a ringing phone as it principle motif, played over a very bland and uninspired menu. The DVD menu was witty and elegant.

you were able to asses the menus graphics? My senses were so confounded by the sounds that my vision blurred. :rolleyes: As Robert said, worst ever, to paraphrase.
Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#22 of 166 Neil Middlemiss

Neil Middlemiss

    Screenwriter

  • 2,638 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2001
  • Real Name:Neil Middlemiss

Posted October 10 2012 - 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by JamesNelson 


It's some weird techno-crap with a ringing phone as it principle motif, played over a very bland and uninspired menu. The DVD menu was witty and elegant.

  It's actually a track from The John Baker Tapes, Volume 1 (Available on Amazon). From the editorial review of that release:


Rare & Unreleased Workshop Recordings 1963-1969. This groundbreaking release represents the first major retrospective of any BBC Radiophonic composer. The legendary BBC Radiophonic Workshop, one of the sound effects units of the BBC, was created in 1958 to produce effects and new music for radio. Sounds for programs were created by using recordings of everyday sounds such as voices, bells, gravel and other raw materials for "radiophonic" manipulations, in which audio tape could be played back at different speeds, pitches, cut and joined, or processed. The Workshop's innovations in manipulative sound is akin to those used in musique concrŠte, and has had a profound influence on the evolution of modern electronic music. By the early 1960s, John Baker (1937-1997) had become permanent Radiophonic staff, and one-third of the holy trinity of composers (the other two being Delia Derbyshire and David Cain), working there throughout the golden 1960s and early 1970s. The 50 tracks on volume 1 of this set represent the major body of important work he produced there, and most tracks have remained unissued, until now. Together, these tracks give an incredible, diverse and magical insight into the man and his methods of working. Rare archive recordings here reveal his production techniques and highlight his innovative trademark sounds and humor. We have jingles, themes, stings, soundtracks and soundscapes from a wide variety of BBC TV, radio and public information broadcasts, as well as exceptionally rare cues from Radiophonic non-broadcast commissions. Highlights include the proto-techno opening for "Dial M For Murder," the electro-jazz intensities of "Vendetta," the plugged-in bossa nova of "Au Printemps," and the revealing "Woman's Hour (Reading Your Letters)" archive interview. All classic stuff. As mentioned before, most of these recordings have remained either lost or unissued until now -- this really is a rare treat and a significant release for followers and fans of vintage British electronics, electroacoustic work, and for buffs of the Delaware Road output. Many of these tracks were even thought lost until they were recently discovered in (his brother) Richard Baker's archive.


"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science" – Edwin Hubble
My DVD Collection

#23 of 166 JamesNelson

JamesNelson

    Second Unit

  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2008

Posted October 10 2012 - 03:06 AM

  It's actually a track from The John Baker Tapes, Volume 1 (Available on Amazon)...

Everybody is somebody's baby. Thanks for the insight Neil.

#24 of 166 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,144 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted October 10 2012 - 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell 

The point I tried to make (poorly) was that someone should be reviewing the disc to prevent such incredibly poor choices. If they had shown that menu to 10 randomly chosen people, 9 out of 10 would have said WTF?


Trust me. I guarantee that 10 out of 10 non-random people in QC said WTF. They don't get to make those decisions of design, though.


"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#25 of 166 Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker

  • 3,145 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted October 10 2012 - 06:44 AM

Am I crazy, or is the shot that begins at 1:28:49 and ending at 1:30:20 not in 3D? Most of the film is set back in the stereo window so without the glasses you see two images most times, but in this shot it looks like everything is 2D with and without glasses, except for a weird splitting during the jiggle of a move at 1:29:11 - watch with no glasses to really see it, with glasses on it looks like an odd distortion. Could this be a place where they only had one eye? If so, they should have done a conversion as its a lengthy shot and very noticeable that its not in depth.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#26 of 166 JamesNelson

JamesNelson

    Second Unit

  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2008

Posted October 10 2012 - 08:52 AM

Am I crazy, or is the shot that begins at 1:28:49 and ending at 1:30:20 not in 3D? Most of the film is set back in the stereo window so without the glasses you see two images most times, but in this shot it looks like everything is 2D with and without glasses, except for a weird splitting during the jiggle of a move at 1:29:11 - watch with no glasses to really see it, with glasses on it looks like an odd distortion. Could this be a place where they only had one eye? If so, they should have done a conversion as its a lengthy shot and very noticeable that its not in depth.

I'm not qualified to answer the part about your sanity... :) ...but I can confirm that the section you noted is indeed flat. I don't know the history behind that. I'm sure the 3-D Archive guys will be able to fill us in.

#27 of 166 Todd J Moore

Todd J Moore

    Second Unit

  • 326 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2005
  • Real Name:Todd Moore
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted October 10 2012 - 12:59 PM

One thing I had never noticed in previous viewings of this that jumped out while watching the blu ray is the make up of the bruising on Grace Kelly's neck the day after the attack. Getting to see that little detail is just another reason I love blu ray.

Viewing a 3D movie in 2D is kinda like viewing a Scope movie in Pan and Scan.


#28 of 166 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,151 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted October 10 2012 - 01:03 PM

Watching the 2-D version right now. The dupes in this film are, I think, the worst in film history, right up there with Giant and maybe even surpassing Giant. Maybe Mr. Harris can shed some light on why Warners is the only studio in that era that has dupes that bad. They are appalling and yes they've always looked that way. It's actually shocking when you cut out of the optical into first generation photography and see sharp, crisp images.

#29 of 166 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,380 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted October 10 2012 - 01:08 PM

WarnerColor. This will be addressed in our review, to be published shortly. Stand by...

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#30 of 166 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 10 2012 - 01:22 PM

Watching the 2-D version right now. The dupes in this film are, I think, the worst in film history, right up there with Giant and maybe even surpassing Giant. Maybe Mr. Harris can shed some light on why Warners is the only studio in that era that has dupes that bad. They are appalling and yes they've always looked that way. It's actually shocking when you cut out of the optical into first generation photography and see sharp, crisp images.

Warner Color was an unfortunate process. All prints were struck via step-printed contact direct positive. They were, unfortunately, single strand, which meant that all printer functions were cut in, but not short cut, so that dupes retuned immediately to original. One shot in Giant! was nearly 200 feet of dupe. This was an economic political move, to try to get around Technicolor, which, half a century later, has failed again. The process went from original to 5216 sep masters to dupe. And neither of the secondary stocks had the necessary quality. It was written, then, There is no way, short of miraculously finding the original footage to do any better. RAH

"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


#31 of 166 rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 801 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted October 10 2012 - 01:28 PM

Warner Color was an unfortunate process. All prints were struck via step-printed contact direct positive. They were, unfortunately, single strand, which meant that all printer functions were cut in, but not short cut, so that dupes retuned immediately to original. One shot in Giant! was nearly 200 feet of dupe. This was an economic political move, to try to get around Technicolor, which, half a century later, has failed again. The process went from original to 5216 sep masters to dupe. And neither of the secondary stocks had the necessary quality. It was written, then, There is no way, short of miraculously finding the original footage to do any better. RAH

Thanks for the information. The one thing that I have noted is that Warner Color prints seemed to be a bit less likely to fade. Deluxe prints, which could look great to begin with, were faded by the time the print made it to a drive-in, whereas some Warner Color prints persist in their original ugliness. Can you explain this?

#32 of 166 mikeyhitchfan

mikeyhitchfan

    Second Unit

  • 458 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2012
  • Real Name:Mike
  • LocationCosta Mesa CA

Posted October 10 2012 - 03:21 PM

I don't have 3D, but the 2D version looks pretty good. The rear projection is awful and it shows even worse in HD. Some of the shots look soft when compared to the full frame DVD version. I think 1.66 ratio might have been a better idea as some shots look a bit cramped. Maybe it's seeing it 1.33 most of the time. A bit of a let down after North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief, but it's HD Hitchcock, and most of it looks very good indeed. Yes, the menu music is horrid.

#33 of 166 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,380 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted October 10 2012 - 03:27 PM

I think 1.66 ratio might have been a better idea as some shots look a bit cramped. Maybe it's seeing it 1.33 most of the time.

1.85:1 was Hitchcock's intended composition and should be respected. It was his first widescreen movie.

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#34 of 166 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,151 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted October 10 2012 - 05:45 PM

1.85:1 was Hitchcock's intended composition and should be respected. It was his first widescreen movie.

And there is nothing cramped in any shot in the film - EVER. The framing is perfection at 1.85, as it should be. That's the problem when all that's been shown for decades is the open matte version. The minute you matte down correctly, everyone thinks it's cramped. No.

#35 of 166 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 4,002 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted October 10 2012 - 07:11 PM

My 2 cents on the menu audio- I thought it was interesting and wondered if it might have been used for a later reissue of the movie. Will have to track down the album it came from as I like audio collage type stuff. Anybody find the somewhat hidden Japanese audio track and subtitles on this?
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#36 of 166 mikeyhitchfan

mikeyhitchfan

    Second Unit

  • 458 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2012
  • Real Name:Mike
  • LocationCosta Mesa CA

Posted October 11 2012 - 03:32 AM

1.85:1 was Hitchcock's intended composition and should be respected. It was his first widescreen movie.

Absolutely agree and I know this. It's just a feeling I got the first time viewing it although I had seen the U.K. DVD that was widescreen a few years ago. There was a lot of headroom in the full frame open matte version!

#37 of 166 Jon Lidolt

Jon Lidolt

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 08 2004

Posted October 11 2012 - 03:48 AM

Amazing how the classic films produce a more satisfying 3D experience over what Hollywood is doing today. I am snatching up as many of these 3D golden classics as I possibly can.

I totally agree with you. The depth is very natural looking (except for the brief process screen shots) and the actors look like real people instead of flat cardboard cutouts. I want more 50's 3-D, come on studios, you've got 'em, we want 'em.

#38 of 166 JamesNelson

JamesNelson

    Second Unit

  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2008

Posted October 11 2012 - 03:55 AM

...I want more 50's 3-D, come on studios, you've got 'em, we want 'em.

+1000 Do any Insiders know how this and Creature from the Black Lagoon have been selling? Are the studios happy with the pre-order numbers, or is it still too early to tell?

#39 of 166 Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member

  • 4,156 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted October 11 2012 - 04:02 AM

I look forward to doing some House of Wax pre-ordering sometime in the near future.



#40 of 166 JamesNelson

JamesNelson

    Second Unit

  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2008

Posted October 11 2012 - 04:06 AM

I look forward to doing some House of Wax pre-ordering sometime in the near future.

As do I, along with anything Mr.Furmanek and his team produce.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 3D Blu-ray Reviews

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users