A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Guns of Navarone -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[dmiller68]

This is one of my favorite WWII movies. I may have to pick this up. Thanks for the review.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by dmiller68

This is one of my favorite WWII movies. I may have to pick this up. Thanks for the review.

For me there is no may about it. Pre-ordered through HTF site.


RAH - Exceptional background, and thank you for it so I can make an intelligent decision on purchase and not wait for other reviews. I was not aware of the original problems and I am sure so many people are not also.

 

[marsnkc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Anthony

Hi, RAH,
I realise this is a bit of a crystal ball question, but is there any restorative techniques currently in development, that may be able to improve this in the longer term, or is this basically as good as it gets or is ever likely to get?

Might it be possible to use alternative technologies to help a handful of shots? Possibly. I've not examined the original elements, but knowing Columbia's Grover Crisp, my take would be that it's as good as it gets. He leaves no stone unturned when it comes to saving their library.


RAH

I've been following the thread and hoping someone would ask a question like this. I thought all things were possible with today's technology (color correction and all the rest I keep reading about) - assuming little or no constraints on time or money. I bought the last DVD set in early 2007 but never got around to watching it (though I've seen the movie umpteen times). It seems I didn't miss much. I preordered the BD on day one, but the thing that most concerns me about the transfer are the horrendous-sounding 'awkward brownish green with red highlights' skin tones you describe. I'll still get the BD, but nothing takes me out of a movie faster than skin tone issues. As long as they're consistent, I can live with a sub-par rendition, otherwise....... I mentioned the infamous first laserdisc editon of My Fair Lady on another thread; the one that was so washed out it looked almost sepia. That and the image that reminded one of anaglyph-3D without the glasses resulted in a mass return to the stores, who took them back without question. Then came the gorgeous laser box-set in late1994, following your miraculous restoration. It would seem, to this tech-illiterate, that if you were able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, restoring - with tools that must seem primitive by today's standards - images and color to such an astonishing degree, why couldn't the Navarone techs at least be able to correct the skin-tone problems here? Was even that part an insurmountable tech issue, or a money one (understandable in today's climate)? My question is no reflection on Mr. Crisp. I'm just very curious. (Miramax's Talented Mr. Ripley, English Patient and Quiet American have been released on BD in the UK in what are said to be 'phone-in' jobs. This with BDs in Canada being transferred - lazily or cheaply? - in 1080i feeds into whatever skepticism I have concerning 'unsalvageable' catalog titles. Also available in the UK are El Cid and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I'm afraid to touch them!)

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by marsnkc


I've been following the thread and hoping someone would ask a question like this. I thought all things were possible with today's technology (color correction and all the rest I keep reading about) - assuming little or no constraints on time or money. I bought the last DVD set in early 2007 but never got around to watching it (though I've seen the movie umpteen times). It seems I didn't miss much. I preordered the BD on day one, but the thing that most concerns me about the transfer are the horrendous-sounding 'awkward brownish green with red highlights' skin tones you describe. I'll still get the BD, but nothing takes me out of a movie faster than skin tone issues. As long as they're consistent, I can live with a sub-par rendition, otherwise.......
I mentioned the infamous first laserdisc editon of My Fair Lady on another thread; the one that was so washed out it looked almost sepia. That and the image that reminded one of anaglyph-3D without the glasses resulted in a mass return to the stores, who took them back without question. Then came the gorgeous laser box-set in late1994, following your miraculous restoration.
It would seem, to this tech-illiterate, that if you were able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, restoring - with tools that must seem primitive by today's standards - images and color to such an astonishing degree, why couldn't the Navarone techs at least be able to correct the skin-tone problems here? Was even that part an insurmountable tech issue, or a money one (understandable in today's climate)? My question is no reflection on Mr. Crisp. I'm just very curious.
(Miramax's Talented Mr. Ripley, English Patient and Quiet American have been released on BD in the UK in what are said to be 'phone-in' jobs. This with BDs in Canada being transferred - lazily or cheaply? - in 1080i feeds into whatever skepticism I have concerning 'unsalvageable' catalog titles. Also available in the UK are El Cid and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I'm afraid to touch them!)

Totally different situations. Although MFL had a myriad of problems, inclusive of incomplete tracks, optically defective sep masters, missing shots and quite a bit of OCN damage, Navarone began life as a toad, and things didn't get better from there. A film the quality of Navarone shouldn't, hadn't, oughtn'ta had to have gone through that. Mr. Crisp takes no prisoners, which is why I'm very happy with the way that Navarone looks. There's little else to go back to.


My advice is to enjoy what we have.


RAH

 

[marsnkc]

Thank you. Looking forward to it. Movie has tremedous nostalgic value for me, hence the concerns. (On my first visit to London in 1967 my girlfriend and I went to see Zeffirelli's Taming of the Shrew at Columbia's Cinema mentioned by Mr. Turner, so that brings back memories! Can't recall what the cinema looked like - most likely too impressed with the movie to care! However, I do remember being impressed with Warner's, as much as with the film we saw there - Bonnie and Clyde!)

 

[Jon Lidolt]

I saw The Guns of Navarone at the State-Lake theatre in Chicago during its initial release. I remember it looking awful: grainy and with off putting color. It was the worst looking studio film I'd seen at that point in time. Other films I saw during this period were movies like Spartacus and Ben-Hur in 70mm, films which looked incredible. Not to mention all of the great looking 35mm Technicolor dye-transfer prints showing in theatres during that era. Guns still stands out in my memory as somewhat of a mess. So much so that it ruined my enjoyment of the film.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Conversation break: Ah, the State Lake; loved that place. I saw NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and STREETS OF FIRE there; it closed maybe a year or two later, in 85 or 86.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

RAH, Thanks for your invaluable input. My screener arrived today, and when I write the review I plan to direct readers to this thread so they can fully appreciate the circumstances surrounding the picture quality.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

but knowing Columbia's Grover Crisp, my take would be that it's as good as it gets. He leaves no stone unturned when it comes to saving their library.


RAH

Any chance, that sometime in the near future, Universal might hire Mr Crisp to oversee their blu ray releases.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Any chance, that sometime in the near future, Universal might hire Mr Crisp to oversee their blu ray releases.

 

 

I second that comment. Universal can sure use the help.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm still in for this title. Thank you RAH for taking the time to give us the history of this film and helping me to modify my expectations to accept what will likely be the best this film will look in home video.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Just a quick question to help with my knowledge base on such matters.


The "force field halo's." I have seen this on Vera Cruz too which i watched recently, is this a result of something they did at the lab when processing the film or an issue with the the camera lens and some abnormal lighting situation at the time of filming.


Is the issue with these force fields on the original negative of both Guns and Vera Cruz, i'm guessing yes with Guns but not so sure about the latter movie.

 

[ShowsOn]

Just a quick question to help with my knowledge base on such matters.


The "force field halo's." I have seen this on Vera Cruz too which i watched recently, is this a result of something they did at the lab when processing the film or an issue with the the camera lens and some abnormal lighting situation at the time of filming.


Is the issue with these force fields on the original negative of both Guns and Vera Cruz, i'm guessing yes with Guns but not so sure about the latter movie.

I think it is because the film didn't have anti-inhalation backing, which is a layer in the emulsion that stops light from reflecting off 'shallow' emulsion layers back out towards the lens, which creates the appearance of a pseudo back-light around dark objects. The CinemaScope films in the Budd Boetticher set suffer from halation, that looks like really bad edge enhancement too. But the quality of the films means it doesn't really bother me that much.

 

[ShowsOn]

The other thing that is strange about this film is that it was still shot with clunky Bausch & Lomb lenses even though it was made in 1960. There is terrible distortion in all of the close-ups. It is surprising that they didn't shoot with Panavision lenses. Still it has some great cinematography by Oswald Morris.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Thanks so much (yet again) for these highly informative "few words", RAH -- precisely why we all huddle around waiting for them for each release, especially of such classic films.


I must again admit to being the "philistine" (in this crowd), who has yet to see this classic -- and never got around to owning the DVD either. And it's especially good to be informed as such so I know what to expect and not be otherwise unduly disappointed by the PQ or be scared off to avoid this release.


Still, it's very unfortunate that fans of this classic may never see a better version than this. Then again, film lovers couldn't even say that much about this film (and various others) for decades until now w/ all the efforts that have gone (and are still going) into preserving/restoring/etc. such classics, so in a way, I guess we're still relatively fortunate for this BD (and others).


And yeah, ditto that (rhetorical?) question about Universal possibly hiring Mr. Crisp to run their BD production operations, etc.


Thanks much again, RAH! Will look forward to this (w/ tempered expectations)...


Best regards,


_Man_

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Just finished watching The Guns of Navarone on Blu-ray.


First time viewing this film anywhere. Actually caught RAH's thread
on it this evening, post-viewing, so I can somewhat relate to some of

the element issues that he brings up.


First of all, I loved this film. Exceptional cast and captivating story.

The film's final climax, within the German fortress, is impressive in

scale and quite exciting to watch.


Was never a fan of David Niven. For the few films I have seen him

in during my lifetime, he always came across as a rather dry, rigid

British actor. This was the first time I saw Mr. Niven in a more

relaxed role, and I actually felt his presence here was a refreshing one.


Going into this film, I was unaware of any element problems. There

were a few short snippets where grain was abundantly evident, but other

than that, I didn't really notice many of the anomalies that Robert Harris

mentioned.

I would say that's a good thing. For the most part, I thought the transfer

looked pretty damn good. So, if I didn't notice any glaring problems, then

I doubt anything is going to stand out for the rest of you.

I do agree that unlike other classics I have seen digitally restored for

Blu-ray, The Guns of Navarone does not have that pristine look of a

new film. However, that being said, I saw virtually no dirt, scratches

or other artifacts that would suggest that it was not brought up to the

standards of looking the best it could. Sony continues to do incredible

work with their classic releases.


I'm just very happy to have spent part of my holiday weekend discovering

this classic. Really enjoyed this movie.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Just finished watching The Guns of Navarone on Blu-ray.


First time viewing this film anywhere. Actually caught RAH's thread
on it this evening, post-viewing, so I can somewhat relate to some of

the element issues that he brings up.


First of all, I loved this film. Exceptional cast and captivating story.

The film's final climax, within the German fortress, is impressive in

scale and quite exciting to watch.


Was never a fan of David Niven. For the few films I have seen him

in during my lifetime, he always came across as a rather dry, rigid

British actor. This was the first time I saw Mr. Niven in a more

relaxed role, and I actually felt his presence here was a refreshing one.


Going into this film, I was unaware of any element problems. There

were a few short snippets where grain was abundantly evident, but other

than that, I didn't really notice many of the anomalies that Robert Harris

mentioned.

I would say that's a good thing. For the most part, I thought the transfer

looked pretty damn good. So, if I didn't notice any glaring problems, then

I doubt anything is going to stand out for the rest of you.

I do agree that unlike other classics I have seen digitally restored for

Blu-ray, The Guns of Navarone does not have that pristine look of a

new film. However, that being said, I saw virtually no dirt, scratches

or other artifacts that would suggest that it was not brought up to the

standards of looking the best it could. Sony continues to do incredible

work with their classic releases.


I'm just very happy to have spent part of my holiday weekend discovering

this classic. Really enjoyed this movie.

Your comments speak volumes for Grover Crisp and the crew at Columbia.


RAH

 

[CULTMAN1]

I remember seeing the raodshow version at The Odeon Leicester Square in 1961. I think it went on to The Columbia Cinema thereafter. Its good to see Adrian Turner posting on our forum but I think your 1959 date was a bit premature!I cannot remember if Guns was blown up to 70mm or shot in 70mm. In any event, I concur at the time ,despite the large screen and good projection facilities at The Odeon, the picture was not perfect even for 70mm. Blu Ray based on RAH's comments is a must...

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by CULTMAN1

I remember seeing the raodshow version at The Odeon Leicester Square in 1961. I think it went on to The Columbia Cinema thereafter. Its good to see Adrian Turner posting on our forum but I think your 1959 date was a bit premature!I cannot remember if Guns was blown up to 70mm or shot in 70mm. In any event, I concur at the time ,despite the large screen and good projection facilities at The Odeon, the picture was not perfect even for 70mm.
Blu Ray based on RAH's comments is a must...

A great memory. Saw the film at the Paramount Theatre in Jackson, MS and was blown away by the film at a young age and looking forward to the Blu-ray. The film was shot 35mm with the 70mm prints being blow ups, if there were blow ups. I guess you saw it with the international intermission intact. I wish they would give the option either watching the film with the intermission or without.
Edit: - Just read Richard's excellent review of the film and found that they do give you the option of watching the film with the intermission or not. Excellent.

 

[Robert Harris]

The first time that I viewed TGoN in 35mm dye transfer was a print that I projected at home a number of years ago. I inspected the print before running, and for the first time noted the prologue and interval. Definitely adds a note of special feel to the film, making it more akin to a roadshow experience, even at its nominal running time.


Great film!


RAH