Pre-Order Heaven Can Wait (1978) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[battlebeast]

Perhaps he didn’t want to talk about it on camera, or the rate he would charge for such an appearance and the costs of producing it would exceed what the release can reasonably be expected to gross.

I don’t understand where this assumption always comes from that studios and boutique labels are passing on a wealth of potential celebrity interviews and if only they’d ask, each disc could be a treasure trove of features. There are lots of practical and financial considerations that must be balanced with each release. Many actors simply do not enjoy talking on camera about their older work. Others wish to be paid at a rate that is higher than the budgeting of such releases would allow for. And market research has shown time and again that in the overwhelming majority of cases, bonus material does not drive sales. Home video labels are not non-profit entities. It does not make good business sense to invest in features that make it harder to break even or turn a profit. That would be the surest way to make every company get out of physical media even faster than they are, if the costs of producing it could not be recovered.

I understand being disappointed when something isn’t exactly what you imagined it would be but some of these posts seem to reflect a willful disregard for basic economic and marketplace realities, not to mention the preferences and wishes of those involved.

I'm not asking for a "Treasure Trove" of bonus features. The trailer. Poster/image gallery. one or two interviews. Hell, you've got Leonard Maltin... It's not hard or expensive to add some of the features I like to watch. There has to be SOMETHING in the Paramount Archives that relates to the film that could be inexpensively added.

And yes, I am thankful for it's release, but come on, a LITTLE more effort never hurt.

 

[darkrock17]

I'm not asking for a "Treasure Trove" of bonus features. The trailer. Poster/image gallery. one or two interviews. Hell, you've got Leonard Maltin... It's not hard or expensive to add some of the features I like to watch. There has to be SOMETHING in the Paramount Archives that relates to the film that could be inexpensively added.

And yes, I am thankful for it's release, but come on, a LITTLE more effort never hurt.

Studios are misers when it comes to parting with their money, so spending anything more then what they have to produce these releases isn't likely going to happen. If you want features, boutique labels is where you'll find them.

 

[TravisR]

I'm not asking for a "Treasure Trove" of bonus features. The trailer. Poster/image gallery. one or two interviews. Hell, you've got Leonard Maltin... It's not hard or expensive to add some of the features I like to watch. There has to be SOMETHING in the Paramount Archives that relates to the film that could be inexpensively added.

And yes, I am thankful for it's release, but come on, a LITTLE more effort never hurt.

I agree with what you're saying but I guess the diminishing special features of the last 5 or even 10 years have made me expect nothing from the studios and to just look at getting the movie as a win.

 

[haineshisway]

Beatty wouldn't talk about it, and I don't believe any other person is alive from this film, save for Julie Christie. Fun would be Elaine May and Beatty yakking but who knows what their schedules are like and if they're even comfortable doing stuff like this during this insane time.

 

[TonyD]

I’ll pick this up even though I already have it on digital since it’s my second favorite film

 

[Alan Tully]

"Fully restored and remastered from the original negative under Beatty’s supervision" is the only extra I need.

 

[mskaye]

From the press release:

..."fully restored and remastered from the original negative under Beatty’s supervision for its arrival on Blu-ray"

Well, that's reassuring; kind of, anyway, for there is that word again, "restored", which can mean almost anything.

Beatty's directorial talents made a major leap in between HEAVEN CAN WAIT and REDS. Recently viewed both films on HBO Max recently and both would benefit from an upgrade. HCW looks quite late 70s in film stock and lighting and visual style. It's on the same cinematic level as SMOKY AND THE BANDIT. REDS' visuals are stunning - ambitious, epic, poetic and gloriously photographed by Vittorio Storaro who was at the time probably the greatest cinematographer alive (APOCALYPSE NOW !)

 

[lark144]

Beatty's directorial talents made a major leap in between HEAVEN CAN WAIT and REDS. Recently viewed both films on HBO Max recently and both would benefit from an upgrade. HCW looks quite late 70s in film stock and lighting and visual style. It's on the same cinematic level as SMOKY AND THE BANDIT. REDS' visuals are stunning - ambitious, epic, poetic and gloriously photographed by Vittorio Storaro who was at the time probably the greatest cinematographer alive (APOCALYPSE NOW !)

I didn't like "Heaven Can Wait" when it came out; I didn't like that late 70's loose, grainy, fuzzy, shaky & free-wheeling style used for a remake of a classic Hollywood comedy--though that worked really well in films like "Nashville", "Scarecrow" and even "Night Moves". Now, of course, I'll probably like the film, as it reminds me of my youth; and I want to re-familiarize myself with Dyan Cannon's brilliant comic gem of a performance, the only thing in the film I really loved at the time, and for me, reason enough to get the Blu.

"Reds" on the other hand, I absolutely adored when it opened; thought it was the best American film of the decade, and yes, Storaro's work is brilliant, but I don't know that I'd criticize William Fraker's ("Rosemary's Baby", "Bullitt"--my two favorite films of the late 60's as far as cinematography goes) lighting on "Heaven Can Wait" as that's clearly the look Beatty wanted.

When Beatty got around to "Reds" he clearly had evolved visually and stylistically, but the look of "Reds" isn't really that expressionistic phantasmagoria Storaro was known for in "The Conformist" and "Last Tango", but closer to a more traditional, though classically-oriented, Neo-realism, like "Rocco and His Brothers" and "The Organizer".

 

[mskaye]

I didn't like "Heaven Can Wait" when it came out; I didn't like that late 70's loose, grainy, fuzzy, shaky & free-wheeling style used for a remake of a classic Hollywood comedy--though that worked really well in films like "Nashville", "Scarecrow" and even "Night Moves". Now, of course, I'll probably like the film, as it reminds me of my youth; and I want to re-familiarize myself with Dyan Cannon's brilliant comic gem of a performance, the only thing in the film I really loved at the time, and for me, reason enough to get the Blu.

"Reds" on the other hand, I absolutely adored when it opened; thought it was the best American film of the decade, and yes, Storaro's work is brilliant, but I don't know that I'd criticize William Fraker's ("Rosemary's Baby", "Bullitt"--my two favorite films of the late 60's as far as cinematography goes) lighting on "Heaven Can Wait" as that's clearly the look Beatty wanted.

When Beatty got around to "Reds" he clearly had evolved visually and stylistically, but the look of "Reds" isn't really that expressionistic phantasmagoria Storaro was known for in "The Conformist" and "Last Tango", but closer to a more traditional, though classically-oriented, Neo-realism, like "Rocco and His Brothers" and "The Organizer".

Agree with you! All of the films that you referenced are genius. Didn't want to criticize all movies of the 70s. There is stunning (and grainy!) work in this era (it's my fave of any decade.) There is just something very "canned" about a lot of HCW that Beatty would ultimately shed by the time he directed and conceived of REDS. But then again, Heaven Can Wait was a romantic, very commercial romantic comedy and that's not usually the type of vehicle that goes hand in hand with visual greatness. Woody Allen (sorry) had the sense to partner with the genius of Gordon Willis for Annie Hall (but then again Woody Allen was a more experienced director too.)

 

[haineshisway]

There's nothing fuzzy or shaky about Heaven Can Wait - it's shot in classic cinema style and should look great - it's Fraker and it certainly looked great in theaters.

 

[lark144]

There's nothing fuzzy or shaky about Heaven Can Wait - it's shot in classic cinema style and should look great - it's Fraker and it certainly looked great in theaters.

In this case I disagree with you. I also saw it when it came out and thought it looked awful. Very 70's grainy, fuzzy lighting, soft zoom lenses and not at all classic. Very surprised as Fraker is one of my favorite DPs. Hated the film and especially the look. Can't imagine it was a poor print as I saw it opening day at the Coronet in what--according to the manager--was a wetgate print. Anyway that's what I remember. Found the experience extremely disappointing and it has stayed in my memory.

 

[mskaye]

In this case I disagree with you. I also saw it when it came out and thought it looked awful. Very 70's grainy, fuzzy lighting, soft zoom lenses and not at all classic. Very surprised as Fraker is one of my favorite DPs. Hated the film and especially the look. Can't imagine it was a poor print as I saw it opening day at the Coronet in what--according to the manager--was a wetgate print. Anyway that's what I remember. Found the experience extremely disappointing and it has stayed in my memory.

Agree. That recent viewing on HBO Max made it look really cheesy - esp. the Heaven sequences and other interiors that are almost TV movie flat and do not age well at all despite the acting talents of everyone involved. Fraker was a great DP - not taking anything away from his talents - but he was dealing with limitations. It's not DAYS OF HEAVEN.

 

[lark144]

Agree. That recent viewing on HBO Max made it look really cheesy - esp. the Heaven sequences and other interiors that are almost TV movie flat and do not age well at all despite the acting talents of everyone involved. Fraker was a great DP - not taking anything away from his talents - but he was dealing with limitations. It's not DAYS OF HEAVEN.

Well, the master on HBO Max could have been at fault, except I saw the film opening day at the Coronet, supposedly a wetgate print in what was then the best theater, quality-wise, in terms of projection, on the East Coast. And yes, it was overly bright, almost TV flat, and at the same time grainy, as if many of the scenes, especially the outdoor ones, had been pushed. It was all very strange. And, though my memory may be faulty, I recall a zoom was used in the sports scenes, which made the close-ups seem soft and yes, fuzzy. I also remember a zoom in the scenes in the mansion with Dyan Cannon, and I remember she was photographed with a very harsh, outdoor, unfiltered light coming from a nearby window, which I thought was ugly and made her look unattractive, especially as the color of the light clashed with the color of her dress. I'm assuming that was done on purpose. Now "Barry Lyndon" also used a zoom for many shots, a Cannon 120-55 as I recall reading in American Cinematographer, and there, those shots seemed sharp as a tack. But in "Heaven Can Wait", those zooms were really soft. And I recall they were used for a lot of the close-ups. Anyway, this is what I remember. It's possible my memory is exaggerating the unattractiveness of the photography and lighting a little. But I recall being really appalled by it.

 

[haineshisway]

It played the Chinese here in LA and looked just fine.

 

[Thomas T]

Beatty wouldn't talk about it, and I don't believe any other person is alive from this film, save for Julie Christie. Fun would be Elaine May and Beatty yakking but who knows what their schedules are like and if they're even comfortable doing stuff like this during this insane time.

Dyan Cannon is still with us.

 

[darkrock17]

Dyan Cannon is still with us.

She and Buck Henry talked about making this film at TCM's Film Festival back in 2018.

 

[JimmyO]

An old fave of mine.

Withdrawing my comment about the categorization of the film. I get it, no one agrees. All good.

 

[TonyD]

An old fave of mine.

But I think labelling it a romantic comedy is missing the mark somewhat.

That’s what I would say it is, what say you?

 

[JimmyO]

That’s what I would say it is, what say you?

Honestly, I don't know! But romantic comedy doesn't seem to quite describe it for me. There were comedic moments, most certainly. I don't know.

 

[mskaye]

Well, the master on HBO Max could have been at fault, except I saw the film opening day at the Coronet, supposedly a wetgate print in what was then the best theater, quality-wise, in terms of projection, on the East Coast. And yes, it was overly bright, almost TV flat, and at the same time grainy, as if many of the scenes, especially the outdoor ones, had been pushed. It was all very strange. And, though my memory may be faulty, I recall a zoom was used in the sports scenes, which made the close-ups seem soft and yes, fuzzy. I also remember a zoom in the scenes in the mansion with Dyan Cannon, and I remember she was photographed with a very harsh, outdoor, unfiltered light coming from a nearby window, which I thought was ugly and made her look unattractive, especially as the color of the light clashed with the color of her dress. I'm assuming that was done on purpose. Now "Barry Lyndon" also used a zoom for many shots, a Cannon 120-55 as I recall reading in American Cinematographer, and there, those shots seemed sharp as a tack. But in "Heaven Can Wait", those zooms were really soft. And I recall they were used for a lot of the close-ups. Anyway, this is what I remember. It's possible my

Honestly, I don't know! But romantic comedy doesn't seem to quite describe it for me. There were comedic moments, most certainly. I don't know.

It is a romantic comedy fantasy drama.