B5Erik

I've got both of their new Noir titles coming next week (Too Late For Tears and Woman on the Run). Both are very good movies that have existed on home video solely on substandard public domain releases.

But if you check out the reviews here and on DVD Beaver it's pretty clear that they've done a great job of putting together decent looking versions of these movies. I am really excited to watch these movies with decent video quality!

Hopefully they release more titles like this in the future.

thetao

Mmm, I'm not familiar with "Woman on the Run", but have been pining for a decent copy of "Too Late for Tears" for a few years now, particularly since the Film Noir Foundation's restoration work. I thought that after VCI's apparently successful sale of "The Prowler" on DVD and BD, that they might snatch these titles as well, but guess they weren't interested.

For anybody hesitating over the ~$30 Flicker Alley price tag, Arrow Films will be releasing both films in the UK on June 13th, albeit Region B locked. I haven't bought enough from them to foretell the future, but Arrow does tend to have regular sales. The contents appears to be largely the same:

http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/too-late...t-blu-ray-dvd/

http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/woman-on...t-blu-ray-dvd/

Brian T

According to Flicker Alley's listings the British Film Institute was involved in these, which may explain why Arrow got them for that market but the content stayed the same.

I'd be a little hesitant about Arrow putting them on sale, though. Not saying it won't happen, or that the Amazon UK prices won't be cheaper eventually than Flicker Alley's (where sales are few and far between), but Arrow's best sales seem to be limited to their horror/exploitation/what-have-you line.

In Arrow's favour, I suspect the Flicker Alley editions won't have the reversible sleeves with original artwork.

I pre-ordered the Flicker Alley versions last year, so looking forward to receiving them soon-ish.


I'm hopeful that this will happen, since there's a LOT of stuff out there deserving of this treatment, and I've read bits n' bites over the past couple of years that other titles are definitely going through the processes. This line from Flicker Alley's listings for these two discs is promising, too:

Brian T

Just got an email from Flicker Alley saying that the 25% off price on these two discs ($29.95) ends tomorrow, May 17, then they're back up to $39.95 for a while.

ctyankee

I sampled Too Late For Tears last night. I was disappointed.

Yes it is waaaay better than other U.S. home video options. However, just because other efforts are far worse, does not make this release worthy.

Worst is the final reel. There is a bright white spot/hole in the upper right background. It's there throughout and very distracting, in my view. Why the good people at UCLA Film Archive didn't correct this is beyond me. It's the background. Simply take the background next to it and apply it digitally. But no, they left it alone.

Adam Tyner

I wonder if the Arrow Academy release makes any further corrections along those lines.

Brian T

Really? Having regrettably purchased at least two of those other U.S. home video options in recent years -- both evidently sourced from different but equally gawd-awful prints -- I'd say without reservation that this version is more than worthy, hole and all (which I likewise noticed but which didn't ruin my enjoyment of the picture). I can live with the hole. The rest of the film looks amazing, all things considered, and it finally has some excellent supplements to give it context. I'll admit the price tag is steep for what is essentially a public domain title, but unless Arrow fixes that hole (and then has a decent sale, something Flicker Alley should do more often), this is as good as it will ever get, at least on disc. I certainly doubt a reissue or a 4K disc edition is in the cards for a title like this.

B5Erik

No kidding, at this point it is about having a watchable version of a really good Noir that is otherwise only available on WAY substandard, almost unwatchable DVD releases.

My blu rays will be delivered tomorrow and I'll watch them over the weekend (at least one of them) and I'll post my thoughts about them then. (Having seen both on previous crappy DVD releases, though, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be happy.)

B5Erik

OK, so I watched the first couple of minutes of Woman on the Run and compared it to my old Alpha DVD...

Well, the results are what you'd expect. The new blu ray crushed it. Infinitely better.

And I love the packaging - it looks like Criterion packaging. Well done!

Jaymole

I'm waiting on reviews for that, especially as I can get it at half the price of the Flicker Alley.

B5Erik

I watched Woman on the Run and the Flicker Alley blu ray is very, very good given the source. Even the DVD that is included in the combo pack looks WAY better than the previous Alpha DVD. It's not even close. They had to go through a lot to find elements worth putting out on blu. The only known surviving 35mm print was lost in a fire on the Universal lot, so they had to hunt down another source.

Beyond the quality details, Woman on the Run is actually a really good movie. It's one of the more entertaining Films Noir. Ann Sheridan carries it beautifully. Her performance is outstanding, and Dennis O'Keefe is good, too (as are the supporting actors).

It is definitely worth buying. I'm really glad I got it.

B5Erik

Oh, and I scanned through the Too Late For Tears blu ray - that dot in the last reel is TINY. It is just a few pixels in size. Much ado about next to nothing.

The overall picture quality for that one is also a giant step up from every release you've ever seen (or haven't seen) of this title. This is a really good looking release. And the movie is great. One of the best Noirs.

ctyankee

If you think this is one of the best noirs, you need to see more noir films. But, that's not the issue. The issue is why, in the death march of physical media, are consumers willing to take mediocre transfers like this? Rather than minimizing the problems on this release, here's a thought, why don't you share with Flicker Alley that this kinda of stuff in 2016 is unacceptable? Instead of saying things could be worse, why not probe how things could be better? You know, like getting rid of this problem. Or the mess of cuts and scratches that is the daytime scene near the end when she parks on the side of the highway ...

Show low expectations, expect those expectations to be met.

Human nature wants our shiny new toys to be shiny. So, people try to minimize the negatives because this dulls their shiny new toys. Well, enjoy your shiny new toy ... that shines brightest in the upper right side of the screen ...

B5Erik

Your expectations seem unrealistic at best, fantasy at worst. These two movies look so much better than every single previous release that it's almost comical.

Expecting them to do a full digital restoration, going frame by frame to digitally remove all the dust and scratches is almost absurd. They can't sell enough copies to cover those costs.

At this point I'm looking at the quality of these prints and when I see and hear such a huge improvement over every single release these movies have had I am extremely happy.

rw2516

With most PD films that were originally released by a major studio, the studio still has original elements, or at least the best quality print in existence. It's not impossible to get the studio to crack the vault and give access.
Universal finally gave up CHARADE. Shout was able to get original prints from the studios for all the PD Bob Hope films and give us pristine releases.
Sitting in either the vault of Universal or Paramount is the best print of STRANGE LOVE OF MARTA IVERS.
Both THE TERROR and KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL have BD releases from PD prints. MGM'S DVD of KC CONFIDENTIAL from official print is far superior. THE TERROR recorded off TCM in 4x3 letterbox, from official print, is superior to the 16x9 BD from PD print.
I might go $10 to upgrade from PD DVD to PD BD, but to get me to spend money get the original elements.

Brian T

Interesting. I thought my own expectations for these titles were rather high, actually, and exceedingly well met. Blanket dismissing them in forums that studios probably don't even care about anymore will not get us anything better considering the "death march of physical media".

This reflex assumption that every movie ever made has a pristine camera negative or some other kind of first-generation print just idling away in some greedy studio's vault somewhere gets a bit tiresome. I'm not saying that it isn't the case with either of these pictures (and will happily defer to any substantiated proof that can be provided here), but it seems rather presumptuous to assume that the parties involved in these restorations didn't at least approach the studios with inquiries or, more likely, already know what was available in their magical vaults. And considering the involvement of the UCLA Archive, the Film Noir Foundation, BFI and whomever else contributed to the revival of these pictures, as well as the strong, strong likelihood that these releases would very likely come to be seen as the definitive versions of the films going forward -- on physical discs, revival screenings and presumably streaming -- what possible benefit could a studio have in not playing ball? I mean, I suppose Universal might have another noir DVD series and/or subsequent multi-disc repackaging slated for release at some indeterminate point in the future, but does anyone really believe that? Let alone that a lovingly-restored alternate print of Too Late for Tears would be part of it? And what studio stands to trump the Flicker Alley release of Woman on the Run by spontaneously producing a superior print down the road when disc formats are even deader than they are right now? It was distributed by United Artists, though not made by them, so does that mean the near-perfect print of the film verifiably resides in the vault of whichever studio owns that catalog?

Come to think of it, how does anyone truly know that any studio has better copies of these films laying around? Both of them were independent productions picked up for distribution by larger studios, rather than being produced in-house. Flicker Alley's information on these plainly states that the only American print of Woman on the Run was destroyed in a fire eight years ago (surely they'd know if a studio -- MGM, I presume? -- was sitting on another "only American print"?), and that Too Late For Tears was reportedly assembled from multiple international sources. Actually, a little further googling tells me that Woman on the Run was a pre-1952 United Artists pickup, which surely throws more doubt on any wishful thinking that an awesome undiscovered print is deliberately being kept under lock and key.

Finally, background information like this, details similar to which are presumably included in the supplemental materials on the discs (which I'll be watching soon), would strongly suggest that people with excessively high expectations are pipe dreaming:

* This probably explains the discrepancy in quality between certain passages of Too Late for Tears, as well as rather obvious reasons why a full-blown pixel-by-pixel restoration just wasn't possible. Odd how no one carped when the much-heralded restored version of Metropolis came out with the weather-beaten (yet restored as much as possible) 16mm footage discovered in Argentina edited back in. We were ecstatic to finally have the most complete version of the film in the most watchable condition it had ever been in. But a couple of less well-known independent noirs that have been ravaged by the public domain for decades have a few scuffs and scratches and a tiny pinhole in otherwise commendable restorations and, well, that's just a sacrilege!

ctyankee

I'm happy that you're happy. But this is 2016 ... with the latest software, they don't have to go frame by frame to correct many problems. That white spot late in the film could be corrected before the technician's second cup of coffee. That's my point.

This is not some $16 dollar release of a classic film. More like, double that. For that, it seems the effort was put in the very beginning and the very end. I'm saying that a couple more days of effort, this really could have delivered a far superior result. YMMV.

ctyankee

We disagree. A couple more days of restoration effort would have made a big difference for Too Late For Tears. If that message is received through disappointing sales ... perhaps that's the kick in the ass that they need. Perhaps I'm wrong on that point, I'm certainly not sure. What I am sure about is that accepting a mediocre effort, won't improve things.

Muller also said he was days away from purchasing a 35mm print of Too Late For Tears from a movie house projectionist when he died. Perhaps that copy (or another) will surface and all of this will be moot. Including this release.

Brian T

Agreed that we disagree, because it's not a mediocre effort. Doubtful any of those involved in the FA edition would attach their names to something that was. Even the word is insulting to everyone who worked on this release in light of all the truly mediocre efforts excreted over the years by mercenaries who truly didn't care about anything other than a quick buck (heck, if anyone wants to see true mediocrity, just watch the film on YouTube; it's there in all it's hideous glory). And Flicker Alley is hardly the kind of company that needs a kick in the ass. I doubt any title in their entire library has set the sales charts on fire. It's hardly their mission considering the kinds of eclectic obscurities they distribute, obviously, but they seem to be doing alright.


Mm-hmm. If the death march of physical media hasn't wrapped up by then. By the way, did Muller say what kind of condition the print was actually in, or just that it was a 35 mm print? He certainly doesn't come off like the other prints he sourced were just inferior Plan B's in case the projectionist deal fell through.

ctyankee

Sophistry. I explained what could have easily been better. It's that simple.

Completely wrong. The projectionist's copy was Plan A. What we got was Plan B according to Muller. (See special feature on this matter).

Brian T

Thanks for clearing that up, but Plan B is an excellent alternative based on what WAS available! But hey, if you'd rather Muller held off on everything until he could clear the rights to the projectionist's print (assuming that's even possible now, and worth the hassle) as well as potentially until a time when projected sales for Blu-rays like this were even lower thanks to the death march, have at it. You could always send your overpriced drink coaster back, of course. Surely they'd process a refund and get the message that this kinda stuff is unacceptable to you in 2016. For others, clearly, accepting this version -- and Woman on the Run, which you haven't weighed in on -- does not amount to the pathetic settling you'd have us think it is. I'm sure that Muller and everyone else associated with this release shares your belief (as do most of us here) that physical media is dying, but they're probably just as aware that a better release of a minor show like Too Late For Tears at some indefinable point in the future will be even less financially justifiable than this one probably was, especially for a film that by your own admission isn't even one of the best (an opinion I share to a degree, incidentally). Flicker Alley, if anything, does the low-profile obscurities in their catalog favours by releasing them on disc at all, and in nearly all cases they've released the best possible versions they possibly could. Waiting is increasingly not an option these days.

B5Erik

If it were so easy and economical to get better prints of Too Late For Tears and put out a better blu ray, then why hasn't anyone done it? People really wanted a good release 10 years ago when DVD's were still selling like hotcakes. Every single release up to now has been flat out awful. Until now no one has put out even a mediocre release.

Maybe, just maybe, it isn't quite as easy and not quite as economical as some people think it is.

The Flicker Alley Noir releases are very, very good and infinitely better than every single release of those titles ever put out on home video. It really is absurd to complain about them. At all.

Hell, I've seen Criterion releases (Stray Dog comes to mind immediately) that don't look this good...

rw2516

1. Studios don't release their own version from studio elements because there's thousands of bargain bin PD copies out there. Can't compete since most people are not educated to know the difference.

2. When a studio allows access to their print you can bet they charge money for it.

3. To date, when a studio does allow access, there prints of PD titles. have been in same condition as rest of the library. There is no correlation between a film being PD and condition of the studio's print. It's bookkeeping and money.

In the case of Too Late For Tears and UA. UA was just a distributor of independent films. The first UA studio films didn't come about till mid 50s with The Mirsch Corporation and Lancaster-Hecht films. UA still has the prints of these films.
When all other independent films released by UA, Crooked Way, 99 River Street, KC Confidential, Storm Fear, and the dozens of cheap B films on MGM/UA's MOD program survived just fine, it is reasonable that the PD ones survived in same condition. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

When original elements are in possession of individuals, that's a different story. In the case of major studios, there is no correlation between a film being PD and condition of print in studio's possession. Exception being a fire or flood, etc.

B5Erik

The studio owned print for Woman on the Run was lost in that fire on the Universal lot in 2008.

If I remember correctly, the studio owned print of Too Late for Tears was lost as well.

Flicker Alley did a great job of getting good quality prints of these movies. I am really glad that they did, because the previous versions available were utter garbage and almost unwatchable (especially Too Late for Tears).

The bottom line with these releases is the movies themselves. They are very good movies and if it's the Flicker Alley versions or any of the previous versions as options it's no contest. And any serious Noir fan is going to want to watch these movies.

Given the DVD history of these two titles I am honestly really surprised that anyone is complaining about the hugely improved picture and sound quality that Flicker Alley has provided. These movies are now watchable and enjoyable, and for all intents and purposes that's true for the very first time on home video.

rw2516

Given that the studio's print is lost/destroyed I agree with you.