Richard, I think you mis-read my post. When I spoke about Republic and Paramount, I referred only to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Republic never had any claim to ONE-EYED JACKS.
How would a film like One Eyed Jacks even get onto the general radar for restoration towards the end of a new DVD release? I assume the primary mover would be the prospect of revenue, but there must be secondary necessities, such as the availability of film elements and their state of decay, etc. Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on the process...
The DVD left France Friday 3rd February by express air mail.
Should arrive in Australia within 5 days.
I will post re the transfer quality the minute it walks throught the door.
Review equipment; Sony KDXBR910 CRT TV Integra DVD player DPS 10.5 Integra Receiver + QED BNC to component cable.(the Australian Sony XBR's don't have HDMI DVI/ plugs so I must use component)
My copy also shipped 3 Feb but now I wish I hadn't ordered it because I've been doing a bit of research on the internet and I see that this label specialise in public domain titles. Also, according to this site: http://www.dvdfr.com/dvd/dvd.php?id=17075 it's 4x3.
The Front Row Features edition is the same as the laser-disc. It's laser-disc quality. No other region 1 edition is laser-disc quality. I recommend it on that basis. I recommend it because there isn't a better one on this side of the pond. Remember it's a budget, public domain label. Be realistic and you won't be disappointed.
The region 2 French edition released by Les Films De Ma Vie comes from an entirely different source and has an entirely different quality. It's not perfect, it has some dirt and print damage, but the color and resolution looks fine to me, and the AR is what it should be. I like it better than the Front Row Features edition. Thank's for providing that link by the way, it shows the cover art.
That review is written in French. I don't savvy French. It would take too damn long to go over it word by word with my little French dictionary. Why don't you translate the review, post it here, and I'll respond.
I think I get the gist from this Babel Fish translation!
"The image is not better than that of a worn VHS (it is even worse). Suffering from a total lack of definition (one seldom saw an image with such a weak piqué), the transfer suffers obviously from the abusive use of the reducer of noise. The image is thus ultra stringer and the plane backs are completely fixed. In short, it is all except what one wants to see in DVD. It should be noted that the subtitles appear in the black bands, therefore for those which would like zoomer on their TV 16/9 (because of absence of transfer 16/9), it will be necessary to occur some".
Received my copy as well. It's as bad or worse as all the other public domain versions. Although widescreen, it's not anamorphic and it's in the wrong ratio of 1.85:1, not 2.35:1 as it should be. What I don't understand is that there is an excellent anamorphic widescreen version regularly shown on TV in the UK which is sharp and has vibrant colors (also in 1.85:1 though).
How Paramount France can give their authorisation to this DVD is baffling. Does Paramount USA know what appalling product their subsidiary company is putting out?
Very depressing; I was hoping that this would be something of a grail for the film at this time. Thanks to you both for taking the chance and sharing your reactions! Now let's storm the gates of Paramount and hold them accountable for ignoring this masterpiece!!!
I somehow suspect that this is still not an official Paramount release. Is this the version that has the ROYAL WEDDING trailer on it? If it does, then that would prove that this is a Public Domain DVD release.
I have seen several backyarders try and mimick Studio logos. I maybe mistaken, but I have a feeling that there is a fake Universal brand selling in stores here in Australia.
It seems unlikely that a disc that bad would be distributed by any Major Studio.