The Stranger (1946): Feb 15th

[Arkadin]

the seminal Orson Welles film noir classic is getting a blu-ray release, possibly as a public domain title.
The distributor is listed at Arts Alliance of America.
crossing fingers for a decent release of a film much more suited to be released by MGM who has issued the best quality dvd.


The Stranger Blu-ray

The Stranger Blu-ray Review

[adamhopelies]

Wow, this is a surprise. Here's hoping some work goes into it, its a great film that has never really seen a decent release. Fingers crossed!

[Clark Kent]

This company is planning to issue several older movies via the public domain on Blu-ray. I am not sure how good of a print or source they can really acquire for a public domain release.

[Arkadin]

well the public domain blu-ray release of "Night of the Living Dead" looks incredible so it is possible to have a good public domain release on blu-ray.
now these aren't from that company, and they may turn out to be poor, but hopefully if they are going through the effort to put this out on blu-ray maybe they have a very nice print to work from.
guess we'll find out come February.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

This company is planning to issue several older movies via the public domain on Blu-ray. I am not sure how good of a print or source they can really acquire for a public domain release.

at least more public domain classics are maiking to blu. I'm trying to think positive on the transfers. There are actully some good prints of public domain films on DVD, let's hope the trend also happens for blu! Does anybody remeber that hack company called Madacy?

[BluPat]

Madacy....yes.....all of their DVD transfers were crap.

The Stranger......I haven't seen that film before. I love classic movies and film noir as well. I'll be getting this.

[octagon]

I don't know how noir it is but it's definitely a very good movie. It will be interesting to see what kind of work they can do with it.

[BluPat]

I like the cover art. Looks beautiful.

[AaronSCH]

As much as I enjoy this film, I wouldn't buy until a few good reviews surface. The last public domain title I purchased on Blu-ray was Max and Dave Fleischer's "Gullivers Travels." It was an abomination and I swiftly traded it.

[Banned User]

really interested in this title, but having never seen a release from this company I'm hesitant to preorder.

The Press Release says:

Digitally restored in high definition from original 35 mm film assets, The Stranger is presented in full screen with an aspect ratio of 4 x 3 and original sound, as well as a new 5.1 surround sound mix. Enclosed is a collectible postcard reproduction of the original movie poster and special features include Spanish subtitles, before-and-after film restoration demo and trailer.

So it sounds like some work has gone into this release. The amount of titles this company has is staggering. http://www.filmchest.com/

The film is being distributed by Virgil Films.

I'm hoping this title gets some attention and sales so the company will release some more of their titles. I'd love to see a lot of the Hammer films get a Bluray release.

[larry47591]

For 11.99 i think its worth the chance

[rezpekt]

Originally Posted by Banned User

The Press Release says:

It sounds nice but I won't be pre-ordering any public domain titles until I've seen some reviews and screenshots. Koch said similar thing about "Gulliver's Travels" and we all know how that turned out.

[rezpekt]

Originally Posted by Banned User

So it sounds like some work has gone into this release. The amount of titles this company has is staggering. http://www.filmchest.com/

Wow, it looks like even more titles are coming from them.
The Terror
Dementia 13
Poor Pretty Eddie
Carnival Magic

Carnival Magic is released next week and should be an indication of what we can expect from other releases.

[MartinL]

I have MGM DVD releases of both "The Stranger" and "Kansas City Confidential" and I'll hold on to them until at least reviews are completed on their blu ray releases. Has anyone ever heard of Arts Alliance of America?

I hope we have not moved into that phase of blu ray production (as with public domain DVDs) where some studios will dredge up anything and pass it off to an unsuspecting public.

Lets face it---some flim noir or "B" pictures will never (or can't, because of missing source elements) see a real restoration. So without a restoration--why dump a DVD version that's just as good.

Some of us (me included) have been jumping on blu ray releases of older films asuming that the blu ray would always be an improvement. Ain't necessarily so!

[Arkadin]

well out of 100's of classic films that have been released on bd so far one could count on one hand the number of releases that have been actually worse than the dvd release.
I personally can't think of more than about 3 if that.
the "Gulliver's Travels" debacle is the main one that comes to mind.
some people would certainly argue that "Spartacus" is another.
care to tell us what the others are?

[manicsounds]

35 mm film "ASSETS", which means, it's not a negative, interpositive, meaning it might be some beat up old print they found, and with "Digital Restoration", most likely a cheap DNR program filtered through... we will see.

[alric12121952]

Originally Posted by manicsounds

35 mm film "ASSETS", which means, it's not a negative, interpositive, meaning it might be some beat up old print they found, and with "Digital Restoration", most likely a cheap DNR program filtered through... we will see.

I'm even more skeptical. I'm thinking they're just claiming it's from 35mm film assets. I doubt it. Where would they get them? And I don't understand why whoever has the current, most complete print doesn't make a BD themselves. When I looked at the screen caps, it didn't look like an improvement over -- and in fact looked worse than -- the MGM DVD I bought a couple of years ago.

I almost did cartwheels when I saw at Amazon that a BD of this film is coming, and I greedily looked through the details. I assumed the manufacturer would be MGM. It wasn't. But the first reviewer at Amazon was one of those top reviewers, so he basically loved seeing his own typing, and offered no details, just so long as his review adds to his accumulated total. Because I doubted seriously if he actually saw it, I ignored his five-star rating, and put my own eyes to the matter. I became suspicious when I saw that the package bore no studio logo, and contrary to what the people here are saying, the manufacturer at Amazon was listed as HD Cinema Classics. That the two different places would list two different manufacturers, I smell a big fat stinking rat. I'm not saying that the site's themselves are lying; I'm saying the manufacturer is presenting himself under two different names. There's something dishonest going on there. Head on over to Amazon and see what I mean. I don't get it.

And then there's this: Only a studio is going to have a real print, so I'm a bit surprised by the My Jeffrey Kauffman's review at this site, which states that it was restored from film elements. I ain't buying it.

I would like to know from Mr. Kauffman how the movie started up, when he played the BD. Did it include the RKO Pictures logo at the beginning, or did it jump right into it? How did it end? Did it go all the way to a fade to black, or did the credits end abruptly? If it ended abruptly, then it is not fully restored. Also, you can remove flecks of dirt and scratches without a negative. I don't know what the rest of you thought, but the MGM DVD edition didn't have much dirt and noise to begin with, so that this edition was run through a process of DNRing to the degree that it scrubbed out the grain suggests to me that the source material was absolute trash, and was maybe even one of those badly compressed video files you can download for free.

And let's add another factor to it, that suggests something is amiss. The pack includes a BD/DVD combo. This, too, suggests that an original print wasn't used. Something stinks very badly up the woodpile.
_________________________________

[fdm]

Disappointed, but not surprised. The MGM DVDs were quite fine (for DVDs), didn't really feel the need to upgrade to blu-ray, but on the off chance this release in particular ended up being stellar, could have happened. Now it's no thanks, pass for sure.

(Ditto on the generous PQ rating. I mean 3.0 vs a 3.5 for Body Heat (just picked the first one that I guessed would have gotten a so-so PQ rating)? Really?)

[jacobb1313]

Originally Posted by alric12121952

I'm even more skeptical. I'm thinking they're just claiming it's from 35mm film assets. I doubt it. Where would they get them?
_________________________________

Indeed. Where does one pick up HD masters of public domain titles? I smell a cut and paste job, although it's totally legitimate, and at least someone had the foresight to do it first and make some money.

And these BD's (KC Confidential included) had to be from the "35 mm assets" at some point, or they wouldn't exist.

[bgart13]

POOR PRETTY EDDIE is coming from a collector's 35mm print. I'd like to think that these releases will look good, but my expectations are being held realistically low. I mean, look at THE TERROR & DEMENTIA 13 -- the best looking transfers belong to MGM (but they only have the rights to show them on tv, not release discs of them). But I suppose the transfers could be good since the company doesn't really have to pay for the rights to release PD, they can spend their money on the transfers instead. I'm hopeful, but keeping my expectations in check.