Kiss Me Kate, a little review (1 Viewer)

[Steve Phillips]

It is not true that KISS ME KATE was only released in 3-D in a couple of venues. It played lots of theatres in 3-D back in late 1953 and early 1954. In fact, MGM even advertised the fact that the 3-D screenings did better business than the flat ones did in trade magazines of the time, and some theatres actually switched to 3-D.

Still, dual 35mm 3-D projection being as expensive and complicated as it was; the handwriting WAS on the wall.

The film is fun flat (and I'm not the biggest musical fan in the world) but seen in properly presented 3-D; it is so much better.

Again, I don't care if the DVD included a flat version; but why not include a stereoscopic 3-D version as well?

 

[Peter Kline]

Steve, your'e right because I saw Kate at a local neighborhood Loews movie theatre in upper Manhattan at the time, not at one of the big mid-town ones.

 

[Rain]

Then, only a few people would get to see it in 3-D due to the glasses only being in a small number of homes.

Hopefully if 3D DVD ever catches on, the studios would have the foresight to put some glasses in the package.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Hopefully if 3D DVD ever catches on, the studios would have the foresight to put some glasses in the package.

Well, proper 3D at home requires the special electronic shutter glasses so I doubt the studios will pack them inside. What would likely happen is that you buy a kit that contains the control box and a couple of pairs of the glasses (you can buy this now with some of the IMAX 3D movies in a set).

Properly done polarized dual-projection 3D is great - I've recently seen a number of these films again and they are a blast, they're significantly better than the "flat" versions.

 

[Derek M Germano]

There are a few screen shots up, for anyone interested in taking a peek:

http://www.thecinemalaser.com/dvd_20...e-kate-dvd.htm

 

[Peter Kline]

Thanks Derek. Nice review and photos.

Peter

 

[Jefferson]

I saw it at FilmForum in NY, too...
we were probably all there at the same time.

I was so impressed. I had a pal with me
who traditionally "cant see 3D", but he saw
it fine.
I had no problem of course.

It made so many of the shots in the movie
make sense for a change.

 

[SteveP]

In 3-D, even Kathryn Grayson seems pretty good!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The movie was filmed for 3D, but by the time it was released, 3D was already over, so it was only shown in 3D in a couple of venues.

As Steve Phillips noted above, this was actually one of the widest releases of a 3D film. MGM underestimated the demand from exhibitors for the 3D version and had to go back to Technicolor and strike many more 3D prints. There's a story that Radio City Music Hall didn't run it in 3D for the premiere because of "quality concerns". This is incorrect - the truth is that the Music Hall would have lost a considerable amount of seating capacity (due to the architecture of the theatre) to run it in 3D, so they chose to run it flat.