Warner Archive: “The Golden Arrow” on Blu-ray

3 Stars

THE GOLDEN ARROW (1962)
NEW 2019 1080p HD MASTER
Run Time 91:00
Subtitles English SDH
Sound Quality DTS HD-Master Audio 2.0 – English
Aspect Ratio 2.35:1, 16 X 9 LETTERBOX
Product Color COLOR
Disc Configuration BD 25

Bandit chief Hassan (Tab Hunter) infiltrates Damascus with a daring plan. Impersonating a prince from the “Island of Flames,” Hassan joins the nobles contending for the hand of beautiful Princess Jamila (Rossana Podesta) intending to kidnap her for ransom. The suitors’ contest revolves around the legendary Black Bow, the weapon of the true savior and Sultan of Damascus. Whoever can bend the bow will wield the invincible power of the Golden Arrow, claim the hand of Jamila and become ruler. No one is more astonished than Hassan when he succeeds in bending the Black Bow, but the brash young thief ignores the call to heroism, kidnaps the princess and loses the Golden Arrow. With the aid of three magical spirits, Hassan must embark on a quest to recover it, contending with a series of supernatural challenges that refine his spirit and prepare him for battle against Baktiar, the evil vizier who controls Damascus. This “scimitar and sandals” epic soars across fantastic locations with sweeping spectacle thanks to the buoyant direction of journeyman genre-master Antonio Margheriti (Wild, Wild Planet).

[​IMG]

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

60 Comments

  1. I've never heard of it. It didn't make the Maltin guide.

    Here is a quote from Tab Hunter that I got from Wikipedia:

    Not being able to speak Italian wasn't a drawback. The script of La Freccia d'Oro – my copy was the only one in English – featured page after page of truly horrendous dialogue… All I could think of was Tony Curtis in The Prince Who Was a Thief (1951): "Yonda lies da castle of my fadda." I spend every night in my hotel, rewriting my lines so I'd at least have fun delivering them. I camped it up shamelessly. Not that it mattered – all my dialogue was eventually dubbed by a stiff-as-a-board Italian baritone with no sense of humor. I ended up sounding like Rossano Brazzi. Disappointment over being stuck in a stinker was eased considerably by weekly infusions of cash, delivered personally by the production manager. I'd sign a voucher and he'd hand over a bundle of lire, some of the old notes as big as place mats.[5]

  2. The Golden Arrow ??

    I keep reading that Warner aren't releasing a lot of the titles that come up on the various wants lists because they need to sell enough copies to make a profit, or at least not to make too much of a loss. This should be a winner for them, & no, I've never heard of it either.

  3. I've never seen it but as a lover of Italian peplum, I've always wanted to and now I finally get to and in HD too! More Rosanna Podesta on blu ray is a good thing. But I have to confess when I first saw the thread heading I thought it was referring to the Bette Davis film with the same title.

  4. Like so many others, I've never heard of the film, and its release is a bit of a head-scratcher. Yet the description is so goofy I'm sort of intrigued. Depending on the reviews, I might consider this during the 4 for $44 sale.

  5. Ken_Martinez

    Baffled by this. Who's the target audience for this? Who's going to buy this in enough copies for it to be profitable?

    Me, for one! Genre films (sci-fi, horror, blaxploitation, peplum) have an enormous fan base. Which is why the Warners Archives regularly release blu rays of titles like The Green Slime, The Cyclops, Cleopatra Jones, Colossus Of Rhodes etc. I'm sure Warners spent very little (if any) money restoring The Golden Arrow and they had a nice transfer ready to go (more or less), so why not? I'd love Helen Of Troy too but clearly there are issues with the quality of the existing transfer that needs extensive (and expensive) clean up or else they would have released it on blu by now.

    Whenever the Archives releases some "B" film instead of some Joan Crawford or Errol Flynn "classic", there's always a plethora of indignant "Why XYZ and not ABC?" posts. Fans of Hollywood's so called "golden age" can't seem to grasp that not everyone is enthralled with Technicolor musicals or Joan Crawford melodramas. If The Green Slime, Cleopatra Jones and The Golden Arrow can fund another Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, The Sea Hawk, The Sea Wolf or Bells Are Ringing then bring them on I say!

  6. Well I dunno, I can't see The Golden Arrow funding anything, & what elements are they working from? I hope it looks better than The Colossus Of Rhodes. Oh well, the wait goes on for the first 2018 WAC that I want to buy.

    …the two Shaft films might earn Warner a few bob. But I wasn't even that impressed with the first one. Richard Roundtree was great, as was the score, but I thought it was a very clumsily made film, almost amateur.

  7. Robert Crawford

    I don't even remember this film. Has anybody seen this film?

    Yes, I watched it on TCM a while back. It is absolutely Tab Hunter's worst movie. I imagine there are cult fans, but it is laughably bad.

  8. Billy Batson

    Well I dunno, I can't see The Golden Arrow funding anything, & what elements are they working from? I hope it looks better than The Colossus Of Rhodes. Oh well, the wait goes on for the first 2018 WAC that I want to buy.

    It will probably be on par with Colossus and as mentioned probably cost next to nothing for them to put out, add in cult films sell and it will definitely make a decent profit and be able to fund something else. The same was said when Colossus was released but it obviously made money or they would not be releasing this title.
    Helen of Troy recently aired on TCM and looks horrible as does the DVD. This would be an extremely expense project to release and not likely to sell many more copies than Colossus or The Golden Arrow which would more than likely make it a money loser which is why we are not seeing it right now. WAC may consider it in the future.

  9. I'm the target audience as well and will definitely be picking this up. I love epic historical adventures and this is one I'm unfamiliar with, but it's a good sign from WB. Like others, I'd go crazy over Helen of Troy, Land of the Pharaohs, the Mankiewicz Julius Caesar, Ivanhoe, Scaramouche and countless others, but WB seems to have put them on the "back burner" when they should be putting them on one of the the 4K scanners they have laying around gathering dust. They obviously did that with Raintree County (and not much more), but it looked fabulous in HD on BBC Movie Night nonetheless. Still no Archive release, why not? Funny they pick the most obscure stuff to release in HD and ignore the legends, but cheapo cult stuff must sell. Personally don't get it, but I will get The Golden Arrow and probably really enjoy it.

  10. Ed Lachmann

    I'm the target audience as well and will definitely be picking this up. I love epic historical adventures and this is one I'm surprisingly unfamiliar with, but it's a good sign from WB. Likes others, I'd go crazy over Helen of Troy, Land of the Pharaohs, the Mankiewicz Julius Caesar, Ivanhoe, Scaramouche and countless others, but WB seems to have put them on the "back burner" when they should be putting them on one of the the 4K scanners they have laying around gathering dust.

    I stand to be corrected but I assume that titles like Troy, Pharaohs, Caesar, Ivanhoe and Scaramouche (which I'd all buy in a heartbeat) need restoration work on existing transfers. God knows if Warners released them on blu ray in less than pristine stellar transfers, the films' fans would be howling! Warners seems to take pride on the quality of their blu ray transfers and if they're not ready, they're not ready. Maybe I'm too optimistic but I would like to think all the aforementioned films are on the back burner for a reason and when they're ready, they'll be out. Patience doesn't seem to be a virtue among some HTFers 🙂

  11. I do get what your saying, Thomas, but WB did put out a sub-standard Giant and got a little flack but we all bought it and are glad we did. I do wonder about Raintree, which looked GREAT in HD on the recent broadcasts, maybe a few white speckles from time to time but certainly acceptable. My only worry is that these beloved titles will get passed over.

  12. Thomas T

    God knows if Warners released them on blu ray in less than pristine stellar transfers, the films' fans would be howling!

    You mean like Horror of Dracula and The Thing From Another World, which got fan huzzahs in spite of obvious PQ problems?

  13. Ken_Martinez

    You mean like Horror of Dracula and The Thing From Another World, which got fan huzzahs in spite of obvious PQ problems?

    I can't comment on the Horror Of Dracula transfer which I've not seen (I have only minimal interest in the title) but I thought the blu of The Thing From Another World looked the best I've ever seen it look based on theatrical screenings, TV showings, laser and DVD releases and I'm happy with it. But then again, I think the blue blu of The King And I looks terrific too so take my humble opinion for what it's worth (or not) 🙂

  14. Ken_Martinez

    You mean like Horror of Dracula and The Thing From Another World, which got fan huzzahs in spite of obvious PQ problems?

    I just bought the rare silent 1929 "Mysterious Island" from WB which looks as though it came from an 80's 16mm to 1" Rank low-rez transfer. Still, I'm thrilled to own it at all. Maybe that's the only "M. Island" element that remains, so we're lucky to have it. I'm still of the mind that most would rather have a beloved film in less than pristine form than not have it at all.

  15. This never got a DVD release, so I would suspect this was one of those that was going through the WB archiving schedule and Warner Archive decided to go Blu-ray with it since it's a title no once will have to debate "upgrading" for since no one owns it in SD. Every sale will be a first sale in the DVD/BD era. They could have just let WB mastering archive it and not release it all, I guess.

  16. Ed Lachmann

    I just bought the rare silent 1929 "Mysterious Island" from WB which looks as though it came from an 80's 16mm to 1" Rank low-rez transfer. Still, I'm thrilled to own it at all. Maybe that's the only "M. Island" element that remains, so we're lucky to have it. I'm still of the mind that most would rather have a beloved film in less than pristine form than not have it at all.

    That's only on DVD though, isn't it? Warner's quality standards of what their willing to release are very different for DVD vs. blu-ray.

  17. Ed Lachmann

    I just bought the rare silent 1929 "Mysterious Island" from WB which looks as though it came from an 80's 16mm to 1" Rank low-rez transfer. Still, I'm thrilled to own it at all. Maybe that's the only "M. Island" element that remains, so we're lucky to have it. I'm still of the mind that most would rather have a beloved film in less than pristine form than not have it at all.

    A two-color Technicolor print of the film has survived over in Europe, but for whatever reason Warners has not been able to come to an agreement with the European archive or perhaps the restoration costs are too high. While it is disappointing, you are right in saying the the recently released DVD is better than nothing.

    If you are interested, you can see a handful of frames of the surviving color version of The Mysterious Island at this website: https://zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/galleries/the-mysterious-island-1929/

  18. Worth

    That's only on DVD though, isn't it? Warner's quality standards of what their willing to release are very different for DVD vs. blu-ray.

    And then there's Giant. The non-restored broadcasts of Raintree Country in HD blow that one away visually yet is considered "not restored enough" or "too expensive" to think about releasing?

  19. I don't even get it. The other boutique labels (Criteron, Shout, Arrow, Kino) have no issue putting out non-genre films, or films from before 1950, and they have to pay to license the rights for those movies. And they're obviously doing well enough that they're in no danger of going under anytime soon. But it's too much for the Warner Archive to put out films that they own all the rights to? They're OK with putting out a ropey-looking Horror of Dracula, or an inconsistent Thing From Another World, but a less-than-pristine 1930's title is over the line?

  20. Genre film fans particularly horror are the most discriminating or picky. The Thing from another world was inconsistent in a couple scenes because of the deleted scenes being restored. The overall print was very good and by far the best its looked. Many British and Euro horror films are released in Europe on blu ray with restorations that super crank contrast and brightness which allows scenes that were somewhat obscured in darkness to be seen even though that wasn't the intended look. This also results in detail loss and unnatural skin tones. This is the case with the German and UK Horror of Dracula. The Horror of Dracula by WAC is a tad too dark but it is still a good transfer and closer to the original theatrical look. I have the UK disc but the WAC disc will be my go to. So from WACs perspective these two films did meet their high criteria there are just other debatable issues with these films. The boutique labels release what is given to them with some minor cleanup. They decide if the transfer is good enough but many times their standards are not high if they feel a title will sell. Criterion and TT usually being the exceptions.

  21. Ed Lachmann

    And then there's Giant. The non-restored broadcasts of Raintree Country in HD blow that one away visually yet is considered "not restored enough" or "too expensive" to think about releasing?

    Giant was released in the early days of blu and would never be released by WAC now without a major restoration.
    What you see on TV is heavily compressed which hides defects that would not be hidden on a more detailed and uncompressed blu ray.
    I believe Robert Harris had mentioned awhile back that a Raintree County restoration would cost a minimum of 300K. 300K to sell 3,000-4,000 discs is too expensive to think about releasing without other investors or potential revenue.

  22. Randy Korstick

    Giant was released in the early days of blu and would never be released by WAC now without a major restoration.
    What you see on TV is heavily compressed which hides defects that would not be hidden on a more detailed and uncompressed blu ray.
    I believe Robert Harris had mentioned awhile back that a Raintree County restoration would cost a minimum of 300K. 300K to sell 3,000-4,000 discs is too expensive to think about releasing without other investors or potential revenue.

    Maybe it's just me, but from what I've read, I thought that what we got with Giant is as good as we are going to get. There was a thread on the whole issue last year, not to mention RAH's original review, and, from what I could understand, it has EVERYTHING to do with how the movie was originally filmed, and, short of somebody managing time travel, we aren't going to get better. And I do think that is the problem here. We're talking about movies like Giant and Thing From Another World, which were restored as best as they could do, and we likely won't get better. Meanwhile, stuff like Raintree County, they could potentially do better. Everybody claims WAC is aiming for perfect or nothing. I think they're going for the best they can, particularly within budget limitations and sales expectations. If we truly want some of the titles we are asking for, we have to support similar stuff (or movies with the same actors/actresses we want more of) with day 1, full price purchases. And regarding 30s movies? I'm not sure the demand is there. I watched what people were asking for when that fake "poll" went around on the other forum recently, asking for people to name their two most wanted titles from Warner. While there were a lot of requests, almost nobody asked for films from the forties, thirties, or twenties. And even among those who did, there was NO agreement about what. I just don't think the demand is there.

  23. One should also keep in mind that for a company like Criterion or Shout Factory the home video industry is their primary, if not sole, business. Warner Archive, on the other hand, is a small division of a huge corporate entity – a corporate entity that weighs the cost/benefit of a catalog home video division against other divisions that have nothing to do with the video market or even movies at all. That creates wholly different circumstances to work under.

  24. Ken_Martinez

    I don't even get it. The other boutique labels (Criteron, Shout, Arrow, Kino) have no issue putting out non-genre films, or films from before 1950, and they have to pay to license the rights for those movies. And they're obviously doing well enough that they're in no danger of going under anytime soon. But it's too much for the Warner Archive to put out films that they own all the rights to? They're OK with putting out a ropey-looking Horror of Dracula, or an inconsistent Thing From Another World, but a less-than-pristine 1930's title is over the line?

    There's a reason Criterion, Shout, Arrow, Kino and I'll add Twilight Time are boutique labels. They cater to films that aren't necessarily commercial major mass market items. It's telling that Kino is releasing Sweet Charity rather than Universal themselves or Criterion is releasing Klute rather than Warners. The profit, if any, that Kino or Criterion will make on them is something Warners and Universal deemed risky and if Criterion or Universal want to take the chance (or the fall), then let them and Warners and Universal will pocket the licensing fee. I mean come on, they're businesses and W and U aren't letting Criterion or Kino release them out of the kindness of their philanthropic hearts. Why rag on Warners for not releasing some 1930s B&W movies when Paramount, for example, has abandoned releasing catalog titles all together (at least on physical media). If Paramount feels it's not profitable enough for them to release an Oscar winner like Ordinary People or a huge box office moneymaker for them like The Carpetbaggers on blu ray, why would Warners expect to make money on some 1930s Norma Shearer melodrama or Jean Harlow comedy on blu?

  25. Thomas T

    There's a reason Criterion, Shout, Arrow, Kino and I'll add Twilight Time are boutique labels. They cater to films that aren't necessarily commercial major mass market items.

    Isn't that what the Warner Archive is doing too? Isn't it too putting out films that "aren't necessarily commercial major mass market items"? Isn't that why these are coming out through the WAC instead of WHV proper, which would be the appropriate comparison for your Paramount example? I'm positive that Warner would be taking a bath on most of the WAC releases if they had to be manufactured in bulk and sent to the big box retailers.

    My point was that the other boutique labels have found a way to put out films that aren't genre or obscure and not go broke in the process, but WAC can't do the same?

  26. I will never understand how long it will take until people understand what an optical is. Giant is basically one endless optical after another. And those opticals, as Mr. Harris has explained, were poor. In the Blu-ray, on the occasions where we finally get a non-optical shot, it looks fine.

  27. Ken_Martinez

    My point was that the other boutique labels have found a way to put out films that aren't genre or obscure and not go broke in the process, but WAC can't do the same?

    Sorry but in no way can Warners be iconsidered a boutique label like Criterion, Twilight Time, Kino or Shout Factory. It is a subsidiary of Time Warner Incorporated, a massive conglomerate and publicly traded company. I stand to be corrected but I don't believe Criterion or Twilight Time have shareholders to answer to. Your example is like saying, "My point was that other boutique stores have found a way to put out vintage designer clothing but Target and Walmart can't do the same?"

  28. Thomas T

    Sorry but in no way can Warners be considered a boutique label like Criterion, Twilight Time, Kino or Shout Factory. It is a subsidiary of Time Warner Incorporated, a massive conglomerate and publicly traded company. I stand to be corrected but I don't believe Criterion or Twilight Time have shareholders to answer to. Your example is like saying, "My point was that other boutique stores have found a way to put out vintage designer clothing but Target and Walmart can't do the same?"

    You're conflating all of Warners with the Warner Archive. My point was that the WAC was set up to release films that were considered unprofitable by the main WHV unit, serving a similar if not identical purpose of the other labels.

    This would all be moot if Warner would license more films out, BTW. But they don't.

  29. haineshisway

    In the Blu-ray, on the occasions where we finally get a non-optical shot, it looks fine.

    I agree with this and I'm one of those who find the film unwatchable. It's those God-forsaken, completely misjudged opticals which ruin everything!

  30. Robin9

    I agree with this and I'm one of those who find the film unwatchable. It's those God-forsaken, completely misjudged opticals which ruin everything!

    "Giant" overall isn't a good looking Blu-ray, but unwatchable it's not on my smaller screen size of 65".

  31. Robert Crawford

    "Giant" overall isn't a good looking Blu-ray, but unwatchable it's not on my smaller screen size of 65".

    My point was I find the film unwatchable, not just the disc. I first saw Giant in a revival theatre and I thought there was something wrong with the print!

  32. Robin9

    My point was I find the film unwatchable, not just the disc. I first saw Giant in a revival theatre and I thought there was something wrong with the print!

    That's too bad, I'm glad the video presentation doesn't affect me the same way.

  33. Robin9

    My point was I find the film unwatchable, not just the disc. I first saw Giant in a revival theatre and I thought there was something wrong with the print!

    I have the blu ray because I like the cast (Taylor, Dean, Hudson, Baker, McCambridge) but I agree that the film is near unwatchable though for different reasons. I find it a bloated bore! But I'll be upfront. I don't much care for George Stevens post WWII output (and that includes A Place In The Sun and Shane). I prefer his output before the end of WWII, films like Swing Time, Gunga Din, Alice Adams, The More The Merrier, Talk Of The Town. The one post WWII exception is The Diary Of Anne Frank which I quite like.

  34. Randy Korstick

    I believe Robert Harris had mentioned awhile back that a Raintree County restoration would cost a minimum of 300K. 300K to sell 3,000-4,000 discs is too expensive to think about releasing without other investors or potential revenue.

    Wonder what I sat through several months ago on BBC movie night in HD then. Just had my eyes tested a few months before and was wearing a new pair of specs as well. It was WAY above what I would consider "acceptable", but if no blu release at all is WB's "option" then why not an Archive DVD as it's the film's never seen the light of day except for a rotten washed out pirate DVD that one can buy from most sources including Ebay?

  35. Ken_Martinez

    You're conflating all of Warners with the Warner Archive. My point was that the WAC was set up to release films that were considered unprofitable by the main WHV unit, serving a similar if not identical purpose of the other labels.

    This would all be moot if Warner would license more films out, BTW. But they don't.

    But he's not wrong about the connection. WAC is not in the same boat as the boutique labels. I don't know what the situation is for movies, but it seems like I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this site) that, for tv shows, the costs for putting the tv shows out on disc are WAY different for the studios than they are for labels like Shout. Since the studios own the shows, they would be trying to cover the costs on clearances for all time, for all formats, not to mention the remastering and other things, while the boutique labels would only be clearing stuff for one format for a few years (or something to that effect), which is much cheaper, and therefore why the boutiques could release tv shows that the bigger studios couldn't. WAC is somewhere in between, where, as you pointed out, they OWN the stuff they are releasing, so their costs are probably similar to WHV's, but offset by the fact that, since it is MOD, they don't have the inventory issues WHV would have, so they can up the price to offset the lower sales. I would imagine the situation is similar for movies, but without any inside information myself, I couldn't say for sure (although one would wonder whether the Kino Lorber insider could tell us more exactly). But, still WAC's costs are probably less than WHV's but more than the boutique labels, and therefore they need our full price, day 1 sales more than those labels might. Again, this is theory on my part.

    And we can all debate the idea of WB licensing out more, but to what end? Short of licensing out to boutique labels that are willing able to work on most/all of their releases (like Criterion, Classicflix, etc.), the pace wouldn't change, or, if the number of releases did increase, the transfer quality would vary wildly from one release to another, as we see with a lot of Kino's releases.

  36. The price link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=htfronsposts-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07R553MFT&asins=B07R553MFT&linkId=1029b2b0ef567cde225607bc5ad9ccd1&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

  37. Wow Warner are doing such exciting things, releasing films nobody has heard of, that were rated badly, and generally are forgotten. We shorty will have Made on Broadway – a 1933 68 minute film that rated a 6.3. There must be a mile long queue waiting for this title. Do they actually move sufficient quantity of duds like Golden, None but the Brave to warrant a Blu ray upgrade? …. while “quality” films like Tender Trap are reissued on DVD with total write offs like Kissing Bandit & Higher & Higher….but there is one small treasure in Gaslight making it to Blu Ray…..a completely mismatched slate of releases. George Feltenstein has contributed care and love in his management of the once great M-G-M classic library. What is happening now with the W A releases seems entirely inconsistent with his background of achievements and one wonders if he remains in control …..

  38. M90GM

    Wow Warner are doing such exciting things, releasing films nobody has heard of, that were rated badly, and generally are forgotten. We shorty will have Made on Broadway – a 1933 68 minute film that rated a 6.3. There must be a mile long queue waiting for this title. Do they actually move sufficient quantity of duds like Golden, None but the Brave to warrant a Blu ray upgrade? …. while "quality" films like Tender Trap are reissued on DVD with total write offs like Kissing Bandit &amp; Higher &amp; Higher….but there is one small treasure in Gaslight making it to Blu Ray…..a completely mismatched slate of releases. George Feltenstein has contributed care and love in his management of the once great M-G-M classic library. What is happening now with the W A releases seems entirely inconsistent with his background of achievements and one wonders if he remains in control …..

    I, for one, am very excited about the blu ray release of The Golden Arrow and None But The Brave and am looking forward to adding them to my collection. Obviously there is a market for these films and I'm a part of that market. Just because they don't interest you doesn't mean no one else wants them. Frankly, I'll take The Golden Arrow and None But The Brave (an underrated film) over any of Joan Crawford's heavy breathing "classics" or Norma Shearer's creaky vehicles. Feltenstein knows his business. If he's going to put out stuff like Summer Stock and Gaslight, he needs the Golden Arrows and None But The Braves to level the playing field. I like that WA is putting out something for everybody. It's not all about Judy Garland musicals and Errol Flynn swashbucklers.

  39. Well I think the criticism about the Golden Arrow release is understandable. When you think of all the swashbucklers (nearly all old MGM films), adventure, epics, westerns & so on, that fill up peoples wants lists, up pops…The Golden Arrow, & of course some people are very pleased, but I don't know what's going on. I'm interested in what it will look like, I doubt if Warner have the original elements, will it be another Colossus of Rhodes? Hopefully it's the next batch in a few days time, what film that I've never heard of will it be this time?

  40. Billy Batson

    Well I think the criticism about the Golden Arrow release is understandable. When you think of all the swashbucklers (nearly all old MGM films), adventure, epics, westerns & so on, that fill up peoples wants lists, up pops…The Golden Arrow, & of course some people are very pleased, but I don't know what's going on. I'm interested in what it will look like, I doubt if Warner have the original elements, will it be another Colossus of Rhodes? Hopefully it's the next batch in a few days time, what film that I've never heard of will it be this time?

    Well, I'm one of those film geeks whose knowledge of movies is fairly extensive so a movie I've never at least heard of is a rarity. When I first moved to Los Angeles in 1978, at the very first dinner party I attended, I was shocked and as a film buff, delighted to see that Tab Hunter was seated on my left. He was very sweet and I tried not to grill him and I only asked about one co-star (Debbie Reynolds) and one movie of his out of the many that he did. Yep, The Golden Arrow! I'm at the age now where I want to see more films that have never seen the light of the day on laser disc or DVD. Like The Golden Arrow (or Congo Crossing or Flame Of The Islands or Hell's Island or Tension At Table Rock or ….. well, you get the point and I suspect perhaps you've not heard of those films either :)). Frankly, and of course, I'm only speaking for myself, if Show Boat, Captain Blood, Scaramouche, Mogambo, Marie Antoinette, Greatest Show On Earth, Around The World In 80 Days, Great Ziegfeld or The Thin Man movies never make it to blu ray. I'm okay with that because I have them on DVD at least. But I don't have The Golden Arrow which has never seen the light of day on laser disc or DVD (probably not VHS either). And I'm thrilled! So rain on my parade fellas, I've got my umbrella and I'm singin' in the rain 🙂

  41. M90GM

    Wow Warner are doing such exciting things, releasing films nobody has heard of, that were rated badly, and generally are forgotten. We shorty will have Made on Broadway – a 1933 68 minute film that rated a 6.3. There must be a mile long queue waiting for this title. Do they actually move sufficient quantity of duds like Golden, None but the Brave to warrant a Blu ray upgrade? …. while "quality" films like Tender Trap are reissued on DVD with total write offs like Kissing Bandit &amp; Higher &amp; Higher….but there is one small treasure in Gaslight making it to Blu Ray…..a completely mismatched slate of releases. George Feltenstein has contributed care and love in his management of the once great M-G-M classic library. What is happening now with the W A releases seems entirely inconsistent with his background of achievements and one wonders if he remains in control …..

    I would venture to believe that after 10 years in the business, that WAC knows what sells and what doesn’t. While not all titles are ones I want, I refrain from throwing criticism at their choices.

  42. ahollis

    I have returned to purchasing the WAC Blu-ray titles direct from the WB Shop.

    Not that I disagree with canning Amazon due to their inconsistency and other issues, but why WBShop unless you intend to wait for the 4/44 sales. Un;ess you are ordering 4 at a time, I just can't justify $30 for a single WAC title that's available elsewhere for 40-50% of that

    16+ at Bullmoose at worst $3 shipping and no sales tax
    18 at BBY
    19 at B&N and Deep Discount (minua any coupon discounts)

    B&N in store Ship to Home during this weeks sale has it for as low as $10+ tax this week

  43. I was extremely excited by the news that "The Golden Arrow" was being released on Blu-Ray by Warner. I saw the film as a kid at a drive-in no less — and it stuck in my memory with deep affection as a total hoot (maybe 3 hoots) . And then only once again on TCM which I DV'rd.

    I received the Blu-Ray a few days ago — and the quality of the image really blew me away. The sets and costumes (and Tad's tan) are all eyepoppingly colorful. The image to my amateur eyes looked pristine. As reported by Mr. Hunter, his dubbing does take a "period of adjustment" but for me that is part of the fun. Now if only they'd issue the Steve Reeves version of "Thief of Bagdad".

    I love "The Golden Arrow" so much that I even purchased the CD Soundtrack release a few years ago (on the Digitmovies label) — music by the great Mario Nascimbene (under the original title “L’arciere delle mille e una notte”).

    This release is a total winner in my ballpark.

  44. I watched this with my brother on his 58" Samsung Plasma. Fun movie, attractive cast.
    Also,
    Damn! Just when I think I'm over plasma technology, I see a flawless, mind blowing presentation like this, and wonder why it no longer exists:huh:

  45. Bryan^H

    I watched this with my brother on his 58" Samsung Plasma. Fun movie, attractive cast.
    Also,
    Damn! Just when I think I'm over plasma technology, I see a flawless, mind blowing presentation like this, and wonder why it no longer exists:huh:

    Apparently, the film was shot in Technirama, which I didn't know, which makes me more anxious to see it. The prospect of viewing Rossana Podesta in 8 perf suddenly makes THE GOLDEN ARROW seem a necessary purchase.

Leave a Reply