Kino

[Cash Flagg]

Holy cat, that screencap from the DNR'd transfer in the MD review is one of the worst things I've ever seen. Kino Kino Kino, this is what happens when we start to trust you!

I'm thinking they were stuck with the turd handed them by Holland Releasing, and then decided to include the 'raw' version as an extra once they saw the abysmal results. On their website, Holland proudly boast that their founder was a 'pioneer in the field of the colorization of black-and-white motion pictures', so that may give you an inkling of their general mindset.

[vsski]

Let's just hope no one buys this crap to send a message to Kino and Holland. Then again, even if that happens what are the chances of someone spending time and money on this title again to do it right. ](*,)
Maybe someone in Europe has any sense, but I'm not holding my breath. Very frustrating!!!

[perkizitore]

I really hope MoC comes to the rescue!

[swo17]

At least they give you the option of watching it raw. Didn't they do something similar for some of the Keaton shorts?

[Drucker]

At least they give you the option of watching it raw. Didn't they do something similar for some of the Keaton shorts?

Yes, the first short on the first disc comes with a "digitally enhanced" version and a regular version.

[EddieLarkin]

The worst of both worlds then. The digifucked cap makes me want to vomit, whilst the raw cap doesn't look too bad apart from the damage. What worries me is the mention of excessive jitter, which surely could have easily been fixed without screwing up anything else. I have little interest in this film and wasn't going to pick it up, but may do so now just to see what a "raw" 35mm image on Blu-ray looks like. I like to think I would have preferred a "raw" untouched Children of Paradise, so this will be interesting to see.

[stevewhamola]

Blu-ray.com on White Zombie

[EddieLarkin]

The 1080p caps of the raw version look surprisingly good, especially the close up in the first cap. Again, it's just disappointing they couldn't have done some mild clean up like removing speckles and image stabilisation. And what are they thinking making the digifucked version the default? How many people buying Blu-rays of little known 1930s films want presentations like this?

[JonasEB]

Remember, White Zombie is one of the primo Public Domain movies, it's on practically every kind of PD compilation, so no one should be surprised that even a legitimate release is compromised in some way.

The raw version doesn't look at all like a disaster, in fact it looks like a pretty damn good presentation of the source materials. Extremely fine grain reproduction, the best this title has ever looked on home video. MOC took the "raw" approach with Vampyr and everyone here celebrated that decision.

Edit - Hadn't noticed that the "raw" version is included only in the extras rather than on the title menu. This is almost certainly a case of the producer (Holland Releasing) requesting that its distributor (Kino) release their work as the headliner (but were nice enough to let the other version be included as well.) This isn't Kino's devious new policy. Some major over-reactions here I think.

[MichaelB]

It sounds to me as though Kino are making the best of what they were given - and the mere fact that they included the "raw" version is a bit of a giveaway that they weren't happy with the digitally futzed version. So I wouldn't cast any blame in their direction at all.

[Props55]

I thought this release was too good to be true when first announced but hoped that perhaps it would be based on improvements in the Roan Group Restoration, which is still the gold standard on this particular PD title. Although pretty "raw" itself (and including some 16mm patchups I believe) it was a labor of love that also featured the reissue trailer and Lugosi's "Intimate Interview" as well as a "Ship's Interview" (captured by a newsreel crew as Lugosi departs the gangway on his return to England to film OLD MOTHER RILEY MEETS THE VAMPIRE) and a commentary by Lugosi and WHITE ZOMBIE expert Gary Don Rhodes. With all due respect to Frank Thompson I can't quite imagine him besting it for informational content although his vocal skills are very likely more practiced. This edition was released on DVD around 2001 and is still available. The Roan Group also produced edtions of SVENGALI, DEVIL BAT, THE CORPSE VANISHES and several other titles that were miles beyond the wretched PD versions produced by Madacy, Laserlight, Alpha and the like. I think they may have been absorbed (or a least distributed) by Troma and so may no longer be a viable producing entity.

In any event this release would seem to harken back to Kino's "trash days" of signing off on patently inferior transfers from questionable sources. Anyone here (paging Herr Schreck!) recall their edition of Lang's LILIOM "licensed" from the "National Film Archive"? To be fair they are probably making the best of a bad situation as Michael B has pointed out. The question remains as to why they are again making bad deals, apparently sight unseen, with such fly by night operators. The only answer I can come up with is that they now have a business model that dictates a full speed ahead course on releasing deep archival library titles in HD and that the quality and care required to do so is now an afterthought.

[Roger Ryan]

At least they give you the option of watching it raw. Didn't they do something similar for some of the Keaton shorts?

Yes, the first short on the first disc comes with a "digitally enhanced" version and a regular version.

Kino included "digitally enhanced" versions of THE HIGH SIGN, THE BOAT, COPS and THE BALLOONATIC. On the menu there is a notice saying that the digital tools used to clean up the image can also remove detail and soften the image, which I thought was an honest way of presenting these alternate versions. I found the results for HIGH SIGN, BOAT and BALLOONATIC inferior to watching the non-cleaned up versions; however, COPS looked very good and the stabilization alone was a considerable improvement.

[Drucker]

Ooops, hadn't gotten to the other discs yet.

[captveg]

Hadn't noticed that the "raw" version is included only in the extras rather than on the title menu. This is almost certainly a case of the producer (Holland Releasing) requesting that its distributor (Kino) release their work as the headliner (but were nice enough to let the other version be included as well.) This isn't Kino's devious new policy. Some major over-reactions here I think.

My thoughts exactly.

[swo17]

Keaton's College gets its standalone Blu release on March 5th. A very underrated film.

[manicsounds]

DVDBeaver compares "White Zombie"

[vsski]

I think Beaver and others all say the same thing about White Zombie, the "Raw" version is the only one to go for (and I believe in this case the screen caps really tell all you need to know).

Some folks have stated an overreaction to this disc on the board here (myself having reacted very strongly), but my argument is this:
"Why spend a lot of time and money on producing a version that everyone says is horrendous and shouldn't be watched to then include the untreated version for which no or little money and effort was spent as an extra instead of putting out what could have been a stellar release?".

Yes maybe this wasn't Kino's fault and they insisted on the "Raw" version to salvage the release, but I'm starting to wonder, do the likes of Kino and Criterion really have no influence over the releases, even if the master is done by others. Why would they tarnish their reputation? Maybe contracts were in place that didn't allow for any changes once they saw the final results, but if that is the case, they better rethink their strategy from here on forward.

[MichaelB]

Yes maybe this wasn't Kino's fault and they insisted on the "Raw" version to salvage the release, but I'm starting to wonder, do the likes of Kino and Criterion really have no influence over the releases, even if the master is done by others. Why would they tarnish their reputation? Maybe contracts were in place that didn't allow for any changes once they saw the final results, but if that is the case, they better rethink their strategy from here on forward.

In my experience, rights contracts include an escape clause if the supplied materials aren't good enough - but given that money has usually been spent on the project before the materials arrive, it really boils down to whether or not you want to write it off.

I'm certainly aware of more than one instance of the BFI successfully requesting a superior master to the one supplied, and I'd be surprised if the same wasn't true of Criterion. But it really depends on how much clout you have - I can well imagine that smaller indie labels are very much at the mercy of the rightsholder.

Someone like Second Run, for instance, has very little influence, which is why they tend to stick to titles that already exist in halfway decent masters after a toe-in-the-water strategy earlier on of releasing films regardless of quality, on the assumption that even a VHS-quality edition of Mother Joan of the Angels (since reissued) was better than nothing at all. But it quickly became clear that people expected a minimum presentation standard, and revised their policy accordingly.

[manicsounds]

DVDTalk reviews for Classic Educational Shorts Volume 5: Rules For School and Volume 6: Troubled Teens

[JPJ]

Any idea what happened to their announced and never released Night Tide DVD and blu-ray? Amazon still has pages up with "May 22, 2012" release date...

Night Tide is not even mentioned on Kino's website,not a good sign.

It's still not on Kino's site but Amazon now lists new release date,April 30th.Hopefully they'll include Harrington/Hopper commentary from Milestone dvd.

[peerpee]

I've spotted a nasty problem on the THEY MADE ME A FUGITIVE Blu-ray which wasn't picked up by Kino or reviewers at Blu-ray.com or DVDBeaver.

At 55:28, on a shot of Trevor Howard, some nasty *diagonal* combing arrives and stays with us until the end of the film, apart from the very final shot of Sally outside the undertakers at 01:39:53 – which looks great – and then it goes bad again for "THE END" and the endtitles.

The fact that this problem affects only half of the film suggests to me that the error is on the supplied HD master, rather than an encoding issue at Kino's end.

Here's an iPhone photo close-up of my Bravia to give an idea of what it looks like. You have to look closely for it, but once you see it, you can't take your eyes off it. It has the effect of badly compromising the resolution of the image.

It's a BFI/Film Foundation restoration, and one hell of a film, so this is a real shame:

[HJackson]

Yup. After I mentioned the film on Twitter I ended up ordering the blu-ray and it arrived a few days ago. I'm in college at the moment so the only means I have to play discs is on my tiny laptop monitor, but I just checked and you can even see the problem there. It's subtle, but once you notice it you can't ignore it.

[bainbridgezu]

Fourteen Jess Franco Films Headed to Blu-ray

[matrixschmatrix]

14 down, 185 to go

[knives]

I suppose that does pose the question on if they are including already released titles.