NoirFan

From Back Alley Noir:
Fox Noir Series may not be dead after all....
« Thread started on: Feb 16th, 2007, 5:37pm »
Straight from Eddie Muller in the latest Noir Sentinel:

"I’m not sure why Fox lost its momentum
last fall, but another three titles, none
of them are Boomerang or The Brasher
Doubloon, will be coming soon. From what
I’ve heard, Boomerang is dead in the water.
Those who got a copy before the recall have
collector’s items. I have no clue why
Doubloon has not been released."
http://filmnoir.suddenlaunch3.com/in...num=1171665464

Cameron

well thats some good news.

Sonofhypnos

Okay, I think I have all the titles listed in this series so far [21 in all] including Boomerang.. which I will gladly upload the cover if you want, but I am interseted in the forthcoming titles and to that end, has anyone heard of the release of Thieves Highway with Richard Conte being added to this collection?

Byron_T

Thieves Highway has been released by Criterion. I know it costs a little more than the Fox Film Noir titles but it is out there.

Johnny Zhivago

Yeah, the CC is still in print so I doubt that Fox will be issuing it as part of their noir collection... But, ya never know.

NoirFan

According to McCarver's helpful list, 14 Hours is going OOP.

mrpeavey

NoirFan's news is a shame. 14 Hours is a cool film.

I'm so disappointed that Fox has put this series in moratorium. There are still so many great films that they could release under the Fox Film Noir banner, and it's frustrating that there's been no movement on it in the last year.

LorenzoL

Thanks for the heads up. I was on the fence in regards to getting the last wave but this news made me go out and purchase it.

Cameron

bummer about the OOP...scoop em up

bellevuecoug

Can I get a copy of this cover? Anyone else have it . . .?

dx23

According to the Fox website, new film noir titles coming soon, including a Boomerang re-release:

Daisy Kenyon
(dir. Otto Preminger, USA 1947)

Dangerous Crossing
(dir. Joseph Newman, USA 1953)

Black Widow
(dir. Nunnally Johnson, USA 1954)

Boomerang!
(dir. Elia Kazan, USA 1947)

http://www.foxclassics.com/comingsoon.php

Johnny Zhivago

^^^ IMHO Fox appears to be taking a liberal stance on what constitutes "film noir" here... They've already pushed it with Fourteen Hours, which is - again IMHO - not a film noir (I know, I know, it's all open for interpretation).

Running those titles through the IMDB and chasing them down on the usual film noir sites... Then checking them against a .pdf "noir comparison" that I downloaded... None of the three are considered film noir. Dangerous Crossing gets mentioned in a few books but the other two are hardly mentioned at all.

True, it could be a simple case of very few people have seen the films in question (I know that I certainly have not) but I dunno... I'm going to wait for reviews from now on and I may be done with this line all together. Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the "noir" label as a marketing tool is really starting to be exploited when it comes to DVD sales?

jdpatri

I certainly agree that the "Noir" labels have become part of a marketing machine. However, if it means that I get to own and see (often for the first time) more movies starring Gene Tierney and Joan Crawford or directed by Otto Preminger, I can only believe that this is a good thing. Without these marketing pushes and our subsequent lemming-like purchasing practices, these titles wouldn't see the light of day. Fox can keep calling whatever decent films it digs out of its vault "noir." Until they start to underwhelm, I'll keep buying.

ViewAskewbian

I didn't purchase one of the title in the MGM releases that just came out (Joey...) and I feel some of the Warner Noirs are questionable. I've decided to not snag everything with the NOIR label slapped to it. I am glad Boomerang is getting a release though. Hopefully the keep the same spine number.

mrpeavey

I agree with this sentiment!

Although it does beg the following question - if Vincent Price's SHOCK and HOUSE ON TELEGRAPH HILL were released under the Fox Film Noir banner, then why are THE LODGER and HANGOVER SQUARE being released under the Cinema Classics banner(?)

Johnny Zhivago

I agree with the keep them coming but not with the noir label... That's what the Studio Classics line was for... or was it? It seems wrong to slap the noir label on them, just to boost sales. Release them as Studio Classics. Although, as I said, in this case maybe they are noirs but it seems strange that they are rarely mentioned as such. But, I do see your point.



Ditto, I'm skipping Joey. As for WB... Well, they're all in a box now so I'm pretty much stuck there. I skipped Dillinger from Volume Two (watched it, not a noir IMHO) but I picked those up from CH. Volume Three and Four I'm just buying the box.



A good question... Shock, I thought, is a noir. Although some will argue that it is not. I haven't had a chance to spin Telegraph Hill yet, it's in my backlog. Looking at The Lodger and Hangover Square on that .pdf that I mentioned... There seems to be a split on those two. But there's more of a consensus there than on any of the newest announcements in the noir line.

BambooLounge

I fail to see the problem with Fox releasing "non-noirs" under their film noir line other than perhaps misleading less knowing film fans into thinking a film is a film noir when it is not (agian, film noir isn't even a genre). I am in the camp that just getting some of these older films out on DVD at all regardless of the banner is a good thing. If I want to dedicate a film noir section on my shelves, then I can omit the entries I feel do not qualify. But, if the argument is that people dislike displaying non-noirs with the film noirs in the collection by spine number, then I think it is a fairly weak one since it is merely based on the displaying of their collections.

NoirFan

In complete agreement about Fourteen Hours.I cannot think of a single noir that does not include Fourteen Hours has neither of these things.

eXcentris

I'm currently reviewing it (sorry, in french ) and although it's a mediocre film (E.G. Robinson sleepwalking thru his role, plot holes and silly behavior galore, but Raft is ok), it was interesting to me because it was shot in Montreal and I kept trying to identify locations. Of course, you've got characters with french canadian names, but they all speak perfect "American". Even funnier to me is that they distorted a french canadian name to make it easier to pronounce. The secretary of one of the main characters (the nuclear scientist) is called Yvonne Temblay,and is identified as a french canadian. Well, while "Tremblay" is a french canadian name, "Temblay" doesn't exist.

As for the noir or not noir debate, this could be argued to no end. I've noted since the very first Warner Vol. 1 release that whatever definition is being used is fairly elastic. It doesn't really bother me.

Cameron

good to hear, i'll try and get an update later this month

zetmoon

My problem with this series is that a lot of the films are not true noirs.

In The Netherlands only 4 films were released in this series:
-The dark corner
-Somewhere in the night
-Thieves highway
-The street with no name

Of these 4 the only true noir is The dark corner.
Somewhere in the night is noirish.
Thieves highway is more like a truckdrivers drama.
The street with no name is a gangster flick in the warner tradition.

And the DVD's that are released in the US also feature some films that
hardly fit the noir monicker.

Most of these titles would not have sold a copy without the Noi banner.

The same can be said about Fox Studio Classics.
Among the true classics there are some very mediocre an rightfully
forgotten films with forgotten stars.
No one in their right mind would have bought these titles if they had been
released by themselves.

The people at Fox are clever.

Release a thriller or mystery film as Noir and voila!

And release a musical, women's picture, oscar picture or drama as
Studio Classic and voila!

seymouru

The fact that these titles wouldn't have seen the light of day without the Noir banner is not a problem for me. If it requires a possibly erroneous label to get these films released, then by all means, mislabel them! What matters is that they are available, whatever marketing tricks are needed to get them out there.

zetmoon

But in my opinion a lot of so called classics don't have to be released at all.

Some films may have been good in their day, but not these days.
And I don't think that every movie that's ever been released should be released
on DVD.

Not every "old" movie is a classic.

A "noir" DVD series should only contain true noirs, like Warner's box-sets.

BambooLounge

I think that is a fairly small minded approach. In theory, any film you do not like, should not be released based on that logic. I firmly believe yes, in fact, every movie that's ever been released should be released on DVD. What is wrong with that? Do you have a complusion to buy every DVD released and need a decrease in releasing to curb your spending or something? And the "some films may have been good in their day, but not these days" argument is quite weak, I mean, if by "good these days" you are referring to the CGI-ladden crap being pumped out by Hollywood, then I don't know what to tell you.

jamieoni

Having worked retail, I learned right away that every movie is someone's favorite. There is no reason for these movies not to be re-released if there are people who want to buy them. No need to take offense, just keep your cash in your pocket. And who cares what tag the studio puts on top of them? Like someone else said, let them call it whatever they want: if it's a movie I want, I'll accept it.