The Naked Jungle (1954) - 29th December 2021 - Imprint Films

[dr727]

[Walrus Gumboot]

Loved this movie when I was a kid! They should have done a special feature on the marabunta! Maybe the audio commentary guys will throw in a few fun facts.
I was going to buy the Charlton Heston DVD box set Madman released a few months back... But now I don't have to. Definitely going to pre-order this one!

[Gorgon]

Heh, I've had a request for this film in my "Sig Block" for about 4 years (updated it today! )

When I purchased the very 1st Imprint Bundle they released, I sent an email to them suggesting this as a considered title.
So amazed that my wish came true!

Ordered x2 copies (plus some other titles) today.
Shipping is a bit rough to Canada ($45Aud) for x5 titles but I'm over it.

I was pleased to see the two Radio Shows" included! I've listened to both, courtesy of YT but not the best quality so hopefully Imprint can remove some of the 'rice krispies' from the tracks.

Fun fact that Bill Conrad, whom of course played the Commissioner in the film, played Leiningen in the radio show (also played Marshall Matt Dillon in the "Gunsmoke" radio shows. Incredible voice!)

I have the LD and Dvd but so pumped to FINALLY get this on Blu.

Life is good...

[Rzzzz]

I love this film and just ordered from Via Vision....

[edmonddantes]

thinking about getting this but Im going to wait til I read some opinions on the PQ

I think my first movie crush was eleanor parker in this film, she looks ravishing. I never understood heston's hesitation. I mean you're in the middle of the jungle, no woman available anywhere, and you get eleanor parker at your doorstep, cmon chuck!

Any of you know or remember where was located heston's property in the film? obviously in the southamerican jungle, but do they mention a country? Im thinking it must be brazil or colombia, but since I dont remember anyone speaking portuguese, I'm leaning towards Colombia

[Gorgon]

^^ His plantation was just off of the Orinoco River, in the very southern part of Venezuela.
I've actually fished there, for Peacock Bass and Payara.
[one of the reasons I'm so enamoured with the film]

Rec Rm fish 25.jpg

[thisis2]

..anyone think this may eventually get a Paramount US release..?

also , Elephant Walk (1953) would be nice to have on blu-ray..

[CanHardly]

I also put a request for this title to be released when Imprint started however i would hav hoped the source material woudl have been better than what it is on the bluray

[Walrus Gumboot]

I finally got around to watching this and it's every bit as awesome as it was when I last saw it as a kid.
I think it works so well because it isn't just about "the killer ants". The sub plots with Eleanor Parker as the mail order bride and the other involving the treatment of the Indians, makes for a more interesting film. The writers really did a great job here!
As mentioned in a post above about Heston's reluctance with Eleanor. I did also think that the house girl would've had to have been fast on her feet whenever Chuck was around!
One of my favourite characters though, is the Fat Man (Jack Reitzen). You certainly notice him whenever he's on the screen. I'm surprised he was uncredited as he is a pivotal character in the story.. I was also a bit fascinated by Eleanor's hairdo

There's a 30 minute Charlton Heston documentary in the extras which is worth a watch! Makes a good book end to the film. Don't expect HD quality. It is visually very average and it looks like the films they referenced from over Chucks career were VHS sourced. But it is what it is and there are some good interview pieces...
What I did realise from watching this doco is; where is Will Penny! It's a Paramount picture, so fingers crossed this will also be a future release by Imprint or by Paramount themselves.

[raybestos]

The video is extremely disappointing; it has been scubbed and is full of rampant DNR. This appears to be a 15 to 20 year-old master which was further scrubbed upon transfer to 1080p. The wait was a long time for this on HD and we certainly deserve better than this. It doesn't look like film. There isn't much difference in the 18-year-old DVD and this 2022 presentation. Sad.

[raybestos]

(I couldn't find a single review online, which is usually a bad thing in terms of expecting stellar picure quality, so I had to purchase with no information as to transfer quality, etc). That was a mistake, for reasons noted above (DNR, old transfer, no film grain evident). Have any reviews of the new Imprint Blu-ray been posted? I want to see if others' opinions match mine and the two other posters above who state the picture quality is poor on this release.

[davidsal]

There's a review from Trailers from Hell DVDSavant
https://trailersfromhell.com/the-naked-jungle/

[Crispy Noodle]

Originally Posted by davidsal

There's a review from Trailers from Hell DVDSavant
https://trailersfromhell.com/the-naked-jungle/

Who comments that it is in the wrong aspect ratio, so add that to the picture quality complaints above.

I was going to get this, but now I think not.

[Moonlight Shadow]

It's an older transfer but the beauty of the movie absolutely comes through.
I'm very happy with this release.
There won't be a better release in my lifetime.

[rip63]

Originally Posted by Crispy Noodle

Who comments that it is in the wrong aspect ratio, so add that to the picture quality complaints above.

I was going to get this, but now I think not.

As far as I understand, The Naked Jungle was not filmed in a widescreen aspect ratio. The movie was filmed in the 1.37:1 Academy Ratio in 1953, before Paramount started making Vista Vision films for release in 1954. Perhaps the film was presented in theaters similar to Shane in which the top and bottom were cropped, which is probably the reason for the confusion regarding it's OAR.

To my eyes, the picture quality looks fine. Could it be better? Yes. An older master, sure. DNR, probably. Better than the DVD? By a long shot.

[karsten]

That Trailers from Hell write-up is a solid review. It addresses the aspect-ratio question thus:

Does an incorrect entry in the IMDB have anything to do with these errors? Bob Furmanek’s authoritative article on the flat-widescreen format changeover (The First Year of Widescreen Production) lists The Naked Jungle at the widescreen 1.66 ratio.

Who knows?

And this is off topic, but I found the follwing comment in the review to be especially welcome:

Eleanor Parker continued to get good starring parts through the 1950s, and turned her ‘thankless role’ in The Sound of Music into a mini-triumph. Plenty of viewers found her classy Baroness more palatable than that fiancé-stealing brat from the convent.

Strongly agree. I always thought that I was the only one who felt that way. Glad to hear that someone else does.

[SpaceBlackKnight]

I believe Naked Jungle started filming in early 1953 and by the time it was ready to release, Paramount had transitioned non-VistaVision productions to 1.75:1 widescreen. Like War of the Worlds, they used the "common top" method to reduce clipping actors heads and signs. 1.33 is fine since you're not really loosing much, though the credits and various shots that appear to be later reshoots show noticeable dead space.

[hypnotoad8128]

Originally Posted by SpaceBlackKnight

I believe Naked Jungle started filming in early 1953 and by the time it was ready to release, Paramount had transitioned non-VistaVision productions to 1.75:1 widescreen. Like War of the Worlds, they used the "common top" method to reduce clipping actors heads and signs. 1.33 is fine since you're not really loosing much, though the credits and various shots that appear to be later reshoots show noticeable dead space.

I second what SpaceBlackKnight is saying. But the story is quite complicated. Please note, this discussion doesn't include the cinemascope aspect ratio in its purview as cinemascope was a completely different beast in comparison to 1:37:1/1:66:1/1:85:1.

Fundamentally, the early to mid-fifties was a time of conversion for cinemas to the new widescreen formats at that time. Some theatres had converted to widescreen projection, but many hadn't.

So the major studios played it safe with aspect ratios and they shot and composed each film "safe" for three aspect ratios, 1:85:1 for cinemas that had changed over, 1:37:1 for cinemas that hadn't changed over and 1:66:1.

Most American studios intended to release widescreen films in the 1:85:1 aspect ratio, but Paramount were an outlier and pushed for a 1:66:1 aspect ratio. Eventually, 1:85:1 became the norm in the U.S. in the late fifties and early sixties and the use of 1:66:1 in American made films diminished in favour of the 1:85:1 aspect ratio. Curiously the 1:66:1 ratio flourished in Europe and is still a popular aspect ratio even today.

Getting back to the film though, at the time of The Naked Jungle's release, most U.S. presentations were still 1:66:1. So all three aspect ratios have technical merit.

Personally, I think that the 1:37:1 aspect ratio is the correct ratio based on director Byron Haskin's history of his films of that time. He shot his adaptation of War Of The Worlds "safe" for three aspect ratios, with an intended aspect ratio of 1:37:1, but Paramount released it at 1:66:1 during its theatrical run for obvious reasons.

Subsequent home releases have been at Haskin's intended 1:37:1 ratio, so I believe this to be the case here as well.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by hypnotoad8128

I second what SpaceBlackKnight is saying. But the story is quite complicated. Please note, this discussion doesn't include the cinemascope aspect ratio in its purview as cinemascope was a completely different beast in comparison to 1:37:1/1:66:1/1:85:1.

Fundamentally, the early to mid-fifties was a time of conversion for cinemas to the new widescreen formats at that time. Some theatres had converted to widescreen projection, but many hadn't.

So the major studios played it safe with aspect ratios and they shot and composed each film "safe" for three aspect ratios, 1:85:1 for cinemas that had changed over, 1:37:1 for cinemas that hadn't changed over and 1:66:1.

Most American studios intended to release widescreen films in the 1:85:1 aspect ratio, but Paramount were an outlier and pushed for a 1:66:1 aspect ratio. Eventually, 1:85:1 became the norm in the U.S. in the late fifties and early sixties and the use of 1:66:1 in American made films diminished in favour of the 1:85:1 aspect ratio. Curiously the 1:66:1 ratio flourished in Europe and is still a popular aspect ratio even today.

Getting back to the film though, at the time of The Naked Jungle's release, most U.S. presentations were still 1:66:1. So all three aspect ratios have technical merit.

Personally, I think that the 1:37:1 aspect ratio is the correct ratio based on director Byron Haskin's history of his films of that time. He shot his adaptation of War Of The Worlds "safe" for three aspect ratios, with an intended aspect ratio of 1:37:1, but Paramount released it at 1:66:1 during its theatrical run for obvious reasons.

Subsequent home releases have been at Haskin's intended 1:37:1 ratio, so I believe this to be the case here as well.

According to Bob Furmanek 1.66:1 is the intended ratio for "The Naked Jungle" and as far as I'm concerned his word is gospel unless somebody presents evidence that he is wrong.

[raybestos]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

According to Bob Furmanek 1.66:1 is the intended ratio for "The Naked Jungle" and as far as I'm concerned his word is gospel unless somebody presents evidence that he is wrong.

The 1.33:1 ratio looks just fine on THE NAKED JUNGLE. I have no complaints there. I assume, that if it was ever shown in 1.66:1, the presentation we see here on Blu-ray was merely matted, so we're not "losing" anything but the mattes in this Blu-ray presentation. I believe the 2004 DVD was also presented in the 4:3 AR. For a film shot in 1953, I think Academy Ratio (1.37:1) can be an equally valid ratio.

Regardless, this looks pretty thick, with some obvious DNR cooked in because it's a very old transfer. Sharpness varies, but it never looks *bad*, just not as a new transfer should, because it simply isn't a current-era re-master. It's probably the same one used for the old Paramount DVD. I'd rate the presentation a 2.5 / 5, with lots of room for improvement.