Hollywood's Legends of Horror Collection

Message

HerrSchreck · #26 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:45 am

Funny that you say that, as, speaking of MYSTERY WAX MUSEUM, every once in a while I kill the color while watching it, to see it in b&w. The photography in the original Curtiz is so loose & free.. not only were they dealing with early sound which nailed most cameras to the floor, but those camera housings with the reflective prisms to create the blue/green & red info on the same strip. Yet you've got those wonderfully offbeat, almost Germanic shots from low angles, great tilted lens shots (like early in the film where the museum owner is watching in the rain as the potential investor comes to check out Atwill's work), like something out of Roland West's ALIBI or even John Alton later on. The subject matter, the deep shadows and wild angles make this film work real well in b&w.

denti alligator · #27 Post by **denti alligator** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:48 am

By the way, this is available for something like $21 at cduniverse.com, where, if you order more than $30 and pay through google you can get $10 off. Pretty good deal, even though shipping isn't included (and is unavoidable).

davebert · #28 Post by **davebert** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:01 am

I simply must second the positive words on this boxset/these films. I watched Dr X, Mark of the Vampire and Fu Manchu at work today, and the experience was great enough that I am going to do the Google Checkout deal this Tuesday. All the prints I saw were pristine.

#29 Post by **Matt** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:15 am

davidhare wrote:If Dr X was shot on a separate camera for B&W one assumes the mise-en-scene would be entirely different. Id certainly never read anywhere it was shot twice, apart from the poster at imdb. Certainly the two-strip print of this is in much worse shape than Wax Museum, which is one of the few two strip movies that really looks attractive in red and green. (NOT red and blue as another imdb poster commented.)

I don't know that it was necessarily shot "twice" (as in different takes) so much as it was filmed with the Technicolor camera and the b&w camera next to each other. I'm fuzzy on this, as it's been several years since I compared the versions, but there were differences in angles and such. Again, not really of much interest to most.

HerrSchreck · #30 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:46 am

Unbelievable, this set. I can't believe I'm getting THESE six legendary films we've all been gnashing our teeth over willing to pay single disc prices for six times over, in such gorgeous condition, with gorgeous telecine off of restored camera neg level materials, with intelligent commentary... for just over 30 bucks. 5 bucks a film for Criterion-level image.

Warner at their best and giving Universal's cheapo Franchise-type collections (i e Deitrich & the great new Karloff collection... ah Halloween!) a run for their money by upping the ante by chucking in the commentaries. Throwing FU MANCHU up on a sony LCD now (the great Tony Gaudio in high form), and put MAD LOVE up earlier on the girlfriend's IArt crt, the films look stunning.

I would have paid the set price simply for the restored MAD LOVE-- love that great vintage trailer ("O Mister Lorre, I simply loved you in M, can you tell us what you're working on right now?") without the other five films.

2006 is finishing off in high form in R1 with this sublime box, PHANTOM, PANDORA, the great Kino Swedish silents & German silents like WARNING SHADOWS, the Feyder to come, restored 7 SAMURAI, CANTERBURY TALE, HANDS OVER THE CITY, ..VERONIQUE.

HerrSchreck · #31 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:14 am

davidhare wrote:If Dr X was shot on a separate camera for B&W one assumes the mise-en-scene would be entirely different. Id certainly never read anywhere it was shot twice, apart from the poster at imdb. Certainly the two-strip print of this is in much worse shape than Wax Museum, which is one of the few two strip movies that really looks attractive in red and green. (NOT red and blue as another imdb poster commented.)

Technically WAX MUSEUM's & DR X's technicolor is not considered a two strip process (as in the three different colored negs in the Three Strip Process, or the two positives pasted together in the earlier silent version of 2-color).

WAX's (and X's) late two color process, called (and utilizing) Subtractive Two-Color Dye Transfer Prints which used red, and blue/green (not pure green like you said dave) didn't use the two cemented matrices via the previous 2-color technicolor method, i e that incredibly cumbersome "Subtractive Two-Color Cemented Print" used during the silent era up to about 27-8 (ie Fairbanks, et al) which could be genuinely called a "2 strip" process in terms of the projected positive w the two matrices.

Those 2-color talkies used the same prism splitter which zapped the lens image thru 2 colored filters, one for red, other for green/blue, sticking it odd/even onto the same strip of negative. The only dif was in the silent era the odd-red would be printed on one reel, the even bluegreen printed on another, and the two cemented together. But the dye transfer utilized a clear stock onto which both matrices were printed eliminated the nightmare of the earlier version. So in neither neg or pos was it a 2-strip.

#32 Post by **Matt** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:07 pm

davidhare wrote:If anyone is deperately intersted I'll refer 'em to the usual Robert Haines history text.

Haines is good on the technology, but his Technicolor filmography sucks. If anyone is desperately interested, I can provide a full filmography of Warner Bros. two-color Technicolor films.

HerrSchreck · #33 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:56 am

This fucking set kills.

Of course Matt the trailer for DR X is for the b&w version. Seeing it again reminded me of so many of the similarities in cast and crew & plot & technique between this & WAX MUSEUM.

The color bias on this UCLA print (obviously the only remaining true technicolor print on this title worth sticking into a genuine WB collection) is heavily biased towards green. Looking at the damage, the depth of contrast, and complete and total lack of any blue whatsoever, I'd say WX MUSEUM's disc is probably closer to what these two films looked like upon release. The original nitrate print for WAX (which was thought a lost film) was found in Jack Warner's house after he died, in complete and pristine condition with nary a dust speckle on it. This print salvaged in quite watchable condition of "X" experienced quite a bit of deterioration (at least vs. WAX, or even say the 2 color BLACK PIRATE, which squeezes out a wider range of colors in the resto as the original neg still exists for that film), and reads onscreen as basically green and pale orange with little variance. Yet at the same time this greenish bias creates an excellent gloomy mood all of it's own. Gladstone Shoals indeed!

Ahh.. This Warner box, one of my most awaited dvd sets of all time has finally arrived, and it's exceeding my expectations in almost every dept. Bread and water! The air I breathe.

Napoleon · #34 Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:49 am

Mad Love has no restraint whatsoever. Loved it.

Lorre is a creepy looking guy, but somehow that wasn't enough so to make him creepier they get rid of his hair.
Still not creepy enough...so they give him metal hands, sunglasses, a neck brace and a trilby.

No point him having an ordinary boring old sweet landlady. Lorre's landlady has to be a crazy drunk who goes around with a parrot (a parrot!) on her shoulder mistaking living people for waxworks.

Add in Colin Clive (who, surprise, appears blind drunk in every scene) as the token hero who keeps involuntarily throwing knives at people due having had a knife throwers hands grafted onto him and we're all set.

I don't know how this film got made, but I'm glad that it did.

Lino · #35 Post by **Lino** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:33 am

DVDSavant

#36 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:29 pm

What the hell? I went to three stores today looking for this set and found nothing. The people at Future Shop didn't even seem to have it in their system. Yet this is Warner Brothers, and should have a wide release.

Needless to say, my week has been ruined.

HerrSchreck · #37 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:20 pm

What is better than MAD LOVE?

Even better this was a huge flop. How most excellent to walk inta some provincial Long Island or even midtown cinema staggering in dead fucked on some rampant pleasant poison and let the brain steam rise while short circuiting on this premeire.. and watching the noodges in the audience betray their own proclaimed sense of worldly cool.

MAD LOVE HAS NO RESTRAINT WHATSOEVER***

In a fucking nutshell. Cutting to the heat of the matter-- exactly. It's the most bitterly twisted piece of filmmaking in sympathy with the bitter angry brilliant souls who learn everything there is in their chosen profession, bump into a certain wall of disappointment.. a wall made far worse by recognition in one's field. Once that wall is hit, often, for the most acutelt brilliant of the lot, there is only triumphant bitterness, the final thing that wont be surrendered versus the rancid boredom lying at the end of achievement.

The only thing coulda made the set better was Vienes LES MAINS DE ORLAC. The above poster would have seen the origin of those nasty braces & chrome fingers. Fritz Kortner.....

davebert · #38 Post by **davebert** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:43 pm

I ordered this today with the Google Checkout deal on CD Universe (throwing in the House of Wax/Mystery Wax Museum double-flick disc thanks to the discussion on this thread), and I can't wait for it to arrive. Halloween 2006 will be done properly!

I actually think underestimating demand is a good thing; I'm willing to wait an extra week if it makes them see the popularity of these titles, treated with care and delivered at a solid price. Maybe it will help speed up a few other projects in the pipeline...

filmnoir1 · #39 Post by **filmnoir1** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:24 am

I purchased this today. I had a chance to watch Mad Love and The Mask of Fu Manchu. I was struck by the amount of psycho babble that was utlized to make plot points in Mad Love, in a film from the mid 1930s. Also Lorre's performance was quite interesting with his shifts from an obessive theatre-goer to a maniac who is willing to sacrifice everything for his love of a woman.
This is a nice box set and important for those who still wish to discuss the influence and propaganda motive of the classical Hollywood studios.

manicsounds · #40 Post by **manicsounds** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:21 am

Got it as a birthday gift from my GF, already watched 2 films and 2 commentaries which were great.

Scott McQueen of Disney really knew his stuff for Dr. X and never made it boring to hear him for a second, and the one for Fu Manchu was outstanding as well. This is an awesome package. Blind Buy it, or get someone to buy it for you

ByMarkClark.com · #41 Post by **ByMarkClark.com** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:17 am

>>I don't know that it was necessarily shot "twice" (as in different takes) so much as it was filmed with the Technicolor camera and the b&w camera next to each other.<<

This is correct. Doesn't Scott MacQueen address this in his audio commentary? (I haven't listened to the commentaries yet.)

I have a VHS boot of the b&w version and the camera angles are slightly different.

#42 Post by **Matt** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:45 am

ByMarkClark.com wrote:This is correct. Doesn't Scott MacQueen address this in his audio commentary? (I haven't listened to the commentaries yet.)

I haven't listened to it yet either, but I'm sure he does. I quoted him extensively in the paper I wrote on the film several years ago.

denti alligator · #43 Post by **denti alligator** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:21 am

Just watched Mad Love and The Devil Doll. Both amazing, but The Devil's Doll really blew me away. The suspense was created and sustained so wonderfully, in part because you don't who's going to get away with what. Sure Lavant is innocent, but he's using evil to fight evil.

Why is this the only one without a commentary? Is it somehow considered the least important of the six?

Plot question:

SpoilerShow

Why does Lavant feel he needs to go into exile again at the end? Because the police think he blew up the doll shop? Why would they pin that on him? I didn't quite understand this.

HerrSchreck · #44 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:20 am

I'd say Barrymore's bad Halloween old lady routine pushes the film out of a certain seriousness... that's my best guess, though I too always liked that film. Only as I got older did I recognize how bad his old lady act is.

Lino · #45 Post by **Lino** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:25 am

Matt wrote:
davidhare wrote:If Dr X was shot on a separate camera for B&W one assumes the mise-en-scene would be entirely different. Id certainly never read anywhere it was shot twice, apart from the poster at imdb. Certainly the two-strip print of this is in much worse shape than Wax Museum, which is one of the few two strip movies that really looks attractive in red and green. (NOT red and blue as another imdb poster commented.)
I don't know that it was necessarily shot "twice" (as in different takes) so much as it was filmed with the Technicolor camera and the b&w camera next to each other. I'm fuzzy on this, as it's been several years since I compared the versions, but there were differences in angles and such. Again, not really of much interest to most.

I think it's safe to assume that two slightly different versions of Dr. X exist. Scott Mcqueen states in his audio commentary that both the B/W and the two-strip technicolor versions were shot simultaneously and while I have not seen the former, judging from the trailer included, the angles are different and quite noticeable.

Also, let's not forget that this kind of films were shot in very tight schedules (18 days, most of them) and as such, no time was left to go back and shoot the same scenes over and over again. But I admit that it would be nice to also have the B/W version on DVD for posterity and comparison sakes.

ByMarkClark.com · #46 Post by **ByMarkClark.com** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:37 am

The B&W version definitely exists. I have a VHS boot of it.

Nihonophile · #47 Post by **Nihonophile** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:23 pm

I heard some film scholar recorded a commentary for Devil Doll and there was some sort of issue with the mastering of the commentary onto the DVD.

#48 Post by **Matt** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:09 pm

Lino wrote:I think it's safe to assume that two slightly different versions of Dr. X exist.

ByMarkClark.com wrote:The B&W version definitely exists. I have a VHS boot of it.

So do I. I know the different version exists. I thought I was pretty clear on that; I just was unclear on precisely how it was shot.

ByMarkClark.com · #49 Post by **ByMarkClark.com** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:50 am

Sorry! However, the question has essentially been answered. Someone wrote, "It was filmed with the Technicolor camera and the b&w camera next to each other." That is essentially correct.

Felix · #50 Post by **Felix** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:36 pm

Matt wrote:
davidhare wrote:If anyone is deperately intersted I'll refer 'em to the usual Robert Haines history text.
Haines is good on the technology, but his Technicolor filmography sucks. If anyone is desperately interested, I can provide a full filmography of Warner Bros. two-color Technicolor films.

I know I am responding to old posts but I came across this thread again having watched Curtiz Mad Genius and liking it very much and then being drawn through Mr X into this, so thanks, good info and I am pleased to have just received the DVD of Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Main reason to post this is this site, which I came across after googling Mystery. I appreciate for you guys this will be nothing new but for the less technically competent like me it looks like a very useful resource on the early colour processes, so I thought I would share it for the benefit of others like me.