Kino Lorber Studio Classics

[Member-222782]

Leviathan is fun cheese but never in a million years would I think it would get released on UHD. I think we've entered the era of "anything is possible" now when it comes to candidates for the format. I think of the film as a low rent cousin to The Abyss. I'll have to think hard if I want to upgrade my Blu.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Nori

Is Leviathan good? I've never seen it. Looks like fun.

It's my favorite Alien knockoff.

Leviathan > The Abyss

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Kino Lorber Insider

Yes, I've heard the clearance tag is even larger.

From what I heard, Donna Summer was the big hold-up. She realized in the early 2000s that she had only authorized her songs for the theatrical release, and not the home video releases. She wanted the songs newly authorized, plus backpay for the 20+ years of home video releases she hadn’t been compensated for. One total I heard was “tens of millions of dollars”. Donna Summer died ten years ago, but her estate has carried on her legacy and refused to authorize the movie without an unreasonable payout. IF Kino has Looking For Mr. Goodbar (and I truly believe they do not), it would be the biggest shock I’ve had in my 23 years of watching and collecting movies.

John Waters once said that it’s $25-30 thousand every time the needle drops, and reauthorizing old songs is harder because the artists rightfully want compensation for years past. Waters had that problem (and that’s the reason Mondo Trasho is never coming back and his other Blu-rays are heavily edited), Kino and Giorgio Moroder had that problem with Metropolis (I don’t know how much it cost to work that out), and Columbia had that problem with American Pop and Heavy Metal (the former has been OOP for over 20 years, the later cost millions to authorize permanently), and Paramount is currently having this problem with Little Darlings and The Astrologer. Having not seen the TV version or the “red box” VHS of Little Darlings, just what’s in the theatrical cut (the “blue box” VHS) is $100,000 on a lucky day. It’s probably closer to 2-3, but I’m not a music rights lawyer, and don’t know the ins and outs of that movie. (Judging by KLI’s words, I assume Little Darlings is sadly not coming either.) The Astrologer was hampered by Paramount literally trying to bribe AGFA and the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema into a one-sided deal for permission to screen the movie. That shameful moment, in addition to that movie’s music issues, are keeping it out of circulation.

Goodbar is a case where the people who need to be paid are just being dicks. To pay “tens of millions” to Donna Summer’s estate would most likely negate any profits the movie has ever earned, as well as insuring the movie could never profit in the future. Unless moving the cans with Goodbar in them leads to some cans that say Ambersons, there is no way Goodbar could be released, in a satisfying version, and make a profit, and you can blame Donna Summer and her people for that.

[koberulz]

I don't understand why people would rather miss out on tens of millions, than make tens of thousands.

[Place Logo Here]

Originally Posted by mja345

The beach party movies are all somewhat similar and if you watched them consecutively, they would play as one extended time capsule. The thing about them is you have to want to completely immerse yourself in that time and place because they're dated in an incredibly specific but enjoyable way, so they may have a limited audience precisely because of that. They were made way before I was born, but the beach party movies are completely idiotic, entertaining and, most importantly, wonderfully evocative of the era.

Very good assessment of why beach party movies are an important genre (especially the part I emphasized in bold). And I believe it is true of any movie/genre--it is a mirror of society/business at the time, as well as an inadvertent psychological portrait of the creative minds behind it. After all, every aspect of a film, every decision that went into making it, reveals something about the forces that shaped it the way it is.

[Aunt Peg]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

From what I heard, Donna Summer was the big hold-up. She realized in the early 2000s that she had only authorized her songs for the theatrical release, and not the home video releases. She wanted the songs newly authorized, plus backpay for the 20+ years of home video releases she hadn’t been compensated for. One total I heard was “tens of millions of dollars”. Donna Summer died ten years ago, but her estate has carried on her legacy and refused to authorize the movie without an unreasonable payout. IF Kino has Looking For Mr. Goodbar (and I truly believe they do not), it would be the biggest shock I’ve had in my 23 years of watching and collecting movies.

John Waters once said that it’s $25-30 thousand every time the needle drops, and reauthorizing old songs is harder because the artists rightfully want compensation for years past. Waters had that problem (and that’s the reason Mondo Trasho is never coming back and his other Blu-rays are heavily edited), Kino and Giorgio Moroder had that problem with Metropolis (I don’t know how much it cost to work that out), and Columbia had that problem with American Pop and Heavy Metal (the former has been OOP for over 20 years, the later cost millions to authorize permanently), and Paramount is currently having this problem with Little Darlings and The Astrologer. Having not seen the TV version or the “red box” VHS of Little Darlings, just what’s in the theatrical cut (the “blue box” VHS) is $100,000 on a lucky day. It’s probably closer to 2-3, but I’m not a music rights lawyer, and don’t know the ins and outs of that movie. (Judging by KLI’s words, I assume Little Darlings is sadly not coming either.) The Astrologer was hampered by Paramount literally trying to bribe AGFA and the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema into a one-sided deal for permission to screen the movie. That shameful moment, in addition to that movie’s music issues, are keeping it out of circulation.

Goodbar is a case where the people who need to be paid are just being dicks. To pay “tens of millions” to Donna Summer’s estate would most likely negate any profits the movie has ever earned, as well as insuring the movie could never profit in the future. Unless moving the cans with Goodbar in them leads to some cans that say Ambersons, there is no way Goodbar could be released, in a satisfying version, and make a profit, and you can blame Donna Summer and her people for that.

Shane, I appreciate your post but how does that explain Donna Summer's 'On the Radio' which is played at the end of Foxes (1980) which has gotten both a DVD and Blu Ray release. (Unless silly me didn't notice it was removed from the Blu Ray, though I vividly remember it at the end of the film at the cinema).

I should know what Donna Summer songs are used in Looking for Mr. Goodbar given the number of times I've seen the film but just curious is you or anyone else knows which songs of hers were used. I assume something in the montage at the beginning but anything more?

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Aunt Peg

Shane, I appreciate your post but how does that explain Donna Summer's 'On the Radio' which is played at the end of Foxes (1980) which has gotten both a DVD and Blu Ray release.

The lawyers in charge of getting the clearances for Foxes were better at their jobs.

[johnny_g]

I should know what Donna Summer songs are used in Looking for Mr. Goodbar given the number of times I've seen the film but just curious is you or anyone else knows which songs of hers were used. I assume something in the montage at the beginning but anything more?

"Could It Be Magic" (written by Barry Manilow) was used in the final scene.

[beamish13]

The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz is definitely one of my most-wanted Paramount titles. Director Ted Kotcheff is alive and well, and it’s his favourite among the many films he directed

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by mja345

The beach party movies are all somewhat similar and if you watched them consecutively, they would play as one extended time capsule. The thing about them is you have to want to completely immerse yourself in that time and place because they're dated in an incredibly specific but enjoyable way, so they may have a limited audience precisely because of that. They were made way before I was born, but the beach party movies are completely idiotic, entertaining and, most importantly, wonderfully evocative of the era.

That's harsh. They were all made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. There was nothing idiotic about them.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

That's harsh. They were all made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. There was nothing idiotic about them.

I think you're making way too much of my comment. Sure, they have a sense of self-awareness about how absurd the proceedings are, but everything that happens in them is incredibly ludicrous. It's the same way that, say, "Commando" has its tongue planted firmly in cheek, is a hugely enjoyable film, but is still incredibly dumb by all objective measures.

[HenryHill]

Originally Posted by mja345

I think you're making way too much of my comment. Sure, they have a sense of self-awareness about how absurd the proceedings are, but everything that happens in them is incredibly ludicrous. It's the same way that, say, "Commando" has its tongue planted firmly in cheek, is a hugely enjoyable film, but is still incredibly dumb by all objective measures.

The Beach movies were made by AIP as drive-in fodder for the teenage market. They were churned out quickly and were meant to be disposable entertainment. I enjoy them, but they aren't art.

[Shanghai Express]

Something can be tongue-in-cheek and idiotic/ludicrous/a dismal failure/appalling/deplorable/regrettable at the same time. Especially a movie. Entertaining is another matter.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Shanghai Express

Something can be tongue-in-cheek and idiotic/ludicrous/a dismal failure/appalling/deplorable/regrettable at the same time. Especially a movie. Entertaining is another matter.

Right, like "Movie 43". It firmly had its' tongue-in-cheek and was a huge, steaming pile of excrement.

[whiteberry]

Originally Posted by HenryHill

they aren't art.

There are many works of art in these movies:

Bobbie Shaw (Pajama Party)


Peter Lupus (Muscle Beach Party)

[Mose Harper]

Originally Posted by HenryHill

The Beach movies were made by AIP as drive-in fodder for the teenage market. Thgey were churned out quickly and were meant to be disposable entertainment. I enjoy them, but they aren't art.

They kind of transcend art now. As mja345 said, they are American pop culture time capsules. I don't rate them as anything extraordinary on their own, but I would love to have a box set of them to dip into when I want to immerse myself in the era prior to another, usually heavier or more significant, feature from the same time frame.

[TenYearLurker]

The Insider does in fact have more insight into the business side of things than the vast majority of folks grousing in here, whether you like it or not. Do some titles occasionally sell more than projections/predictions indicate? Sure. But on the whole, there are numbers and metrics that can be referenced to influence business/financial decisions that make sense for a company.

KLI has even pointed to the dire numbers that Olive saw with some of their beach party movie releases, yet people are still clamoring for them, while trying to tell label reps that they know better than them. It's ridiculous, and a little embarrassing, and the tone in his responses is totally understandable. Why is it so hard for some of you to accept that these movies don't resonate with, or matter to, a vast amount of people--including fellow film lovers and collectors?

The fact is, beach party movies primarily appeal to aging white men from the boomer generation who enjoy them for nostalgic reasons; that's not a criticism or a knock, that's just a fact. And no, seeing a few women in bikinis is not enough for most people to care about a movie. The movies are silly and corny (as are many of the movies I have in my own collection), but I completely disagree that they're fun. They all blend into one another, and are a painfully boring way to spend 90 minutes, in my experience.

Some are arguing that Back to the Beach was huge for 80's kids, but that's not true at all. I'm an 80's kid, and so are all of my movie-loving and collecting friends; many of us also love Pee-Wee Herman and Fishbone, but their inclusion in the movie isn't enough to make me sit through any Frankie and Annette vehicle, because I just don't care about them. At all. And the numbers indicate that I'm not alone in that. The movie barely broke even, and was not a success by any definition of the word.

I love plenty of stuff that I know other people couldn't give a damn about. And that's ok! But it's getting absurd watching a vocal minority continue to bring up a small subgenre as being unfairly ignored, and confidently stating that they'll be big sellers for boutique labels. If you're so sure of it, put your own money towards securing the rights and releasing them, and see how it works out for you.

[patrick23]

I was aware of the Beach party movies but never had much interest in them. I decided
to watch one because I saw John Ashley was in it and I enjoyed him in his B Horror films.
I had a great time with it. Never expected to but I did. I bought all 3 Olive releases and
liked them all. I would buy any more that got releases. (I bought that Scorpion one with
Gilligan too. Not as good as the classics but fun). I don't think it's fair to judge how a genre
would do until the classic titles are put out by a good label at good prices, e.g. Kino.

[EVOLVIST]

Reviews Kind of Suck...

The Garden of Allah (1936) 1080p

Sometimes you find that reviews are right on the money, while other times you wonder if Stevie Wonder described the PQ to the writer. It's the nature of subjectivity, yet objectively, I really don't think some folks know the ins and outs of three-strip Technicolor (I'm still in the middle of learning.)

This is going to be some nerdy shit, so first I'll tell you that the three color matrices for The Garden of Allah are perfectly aligned. That's step one. It's an important step, because although you don't necessarily need perfect alignment to dig the flick; nevertheless, when it's all squared perfect, there's a sense of rightness, because we don't get color bleed and halos in our everyday vision. The illusion is more complete.

Now that that is out of the way, reviews on blu-ray.com have given the least aligned three-strip film, Dr. Cyclops (1940), a 5 star win, a slightly misaligned three-strip film, Under Capricorn (1949) a 4 star bullet, and a near perfectly aligned gem, The Garden of Allah, a consolation 3 stars. The only misalignment here comes during dissolves. Maybe two or three times during the whole picture.

That's the complete flip of the way it should be, because it's not like The Garden of Allah has more analog artifacts than the others possess. In fact, other than some color flecks and some minor debris, Allah is at least equal, if not greater than, the aforementioned titles. They are all swell watches, but Allah is more of how Technicolor Process IV was designed to look.

It's even debatable if the colors in The Garden of Allah are muted, as there are definitely some lens filters at play. That makes this film the first to use filters in three-strip Technicolor, which is also what gave cinematographers W. Howard Greene and Harold Rosson special Oscars for color cinematography. In other words, they broke the mold for the 3rd three-strip Technicolor film ever produced, imbuing the movie with a yellow/golden hue, evoking the desert landscape in which it is set. Color saturation is bold and fitting. It's beautiful.

Equally impressive is the complete lack of digital artifacts. Supposedly, the original three negatives were aligned about 20 years ago, resulting in a new print or an internegative. Nobody took the time to make the image spotless, but that's okay; there's not that much to clean. Still, it could look better with the frame-by-frame treatment.

That story, though! Sure, it has it's share of 1930's melodrama; however, by and large it's a well-told story - certainly surpassing Becky Sharp (1935) and The Dancing Pirate (1936) - with a mix of travelog, heartbreak, comedy, religion and the taboo. Marlene Dietrich isn't one of my favorites, but she certainly adds the pepper here, sporting less of her classic German accent, in favor of a more Hollywood delivery. She spends a lot of time just making love to the camera, yet this allows for some interesting closeups, almost 3D in nature. The depth of focus is unreal and points to an aesthetic that Jack Cardiff would later perfect. I'd be surprised if Cardiff wasn't directly influenced by this presentation.

It's more than an aside to mention Charles Boyer's expressive and convincing performance. He's actually the main attraction, but the performances by Basil Rathbone and Oscar winning Joseph Schildkraut are pretty solid, as well. John Carradine plays the mystical "Sand Diviner," and I've read people joke about this performance, but if you've ever been to the middle east, like I have, colorful characters in local markets abound to this day.

At 79 minutes, not a shot is wasted. One might argue that the story doesn't have time to breathe, yet at the same time, if you don't catch on that this is a film of self-discovery within the first 10 minutes, than you've lost the beat. There is an undercurrent that Dietrich might have lived a debauched life before returning to the church, but the Hays Code forced director Richard Boleslawski to veil Dietrich's character. It's fine; it's still a spiritual tale without browbeating the viewer with religious tedium. Everything was shot above the waist. Boleslawski would die at the age of 47, two months after this film was released. He had vision.

Oh, and who can front on Max Steiner's score? It was nominated for an Academy Award back when Oscars still meant something. The mono mix is surprisingly clear, without getting too peaky in the upper-mids, as soundtracks of this vintage are wont to do. Voices are clear and Steiner really gets some breathing room to play with exotic themes.

In sum, I was pleased way more than I thought I would be. I wasn't expecting much based on the reviews It was a blind buy in my bid to collect all of the three-strip Technicolor films that I can. Snap, I'm glad that I did! The Garden of Allah surpasses many of the three-strip films from Kino Lorber that I've seen so far. The only things that keeps this movie from the top are the minor niggles that could be cured with a full restoration; otherwise, if it never gets further restored (which is unlikely), I'd still be geeked to have this Blu-ray in my stable.

Besides, right now it can be had for $7.99 from Kino, and no, I have zero affiliation with Kino Lorber, other than I buy some of their stuff.

Book it.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by TenYearLurker

The Insider does in fact have more insight into the business side of things than the vast majority of folks grousing in here, whether you like it or not. Do some titles occasionally sell more than projections/predictions indicate? Sure. But on the whole, there are numbers and metrics that can be referenced to influence business/financial decisions that make sense for a company.

KLI has even pointed to the dire numbers that Olive saw with some of their beach party movie releases, yet people are still clamoring for them, while trying to tell label reps that they know better than them. It's ridiculous, and a little embarrassing, and the tone in his responses is totally understandable. Why is it so hard for some of you to accept that these movies don't resonate with, or matter to, a vast amount of people--including fellow film lovers and collectors?

The fact is, beach party movies primarily appeal to aging white men from the boomer generation who enjoy them for nostalgic reasons; that's not a criticism or a knock, that's just a fact. And no, seeing a few women in bikinis is not enough for most people to care about a movie. The movies are silly and corny (as are many of the movies I have in my own collection), but I completely disagree that they're fun. They all blend into one another, and are a painfully boring way to spend 90 minutes, in my experience.

Some are arguing that Back to the Beach was huge for 80's kids, but that's not true at all. I'm an 80's kid, and so are all of my movie-loving and collecting friends; many of us also love Pee-Wee Herman and Fishbone, but their inclusion in the movie isn't enough to make me sit through any Frankie and Annette vehicle, because I just don't care about them. At all. And the numbers indicate that I'm not alone in that. The movie barely broke even, and was not a success by any definition of the word.

I love plenty of stuff that I know other people couldn't give a damn about. And that's ok! But it's getting absurd watching a vocal minority continue to bring up a small subgenre as being unfairly ignored, and confidently stating that they'll be big sellers for boutique labels. If you're so sure of it, put your own money towards securing the rights and releasing them, and see how it works out for you.

Thank you for contributing your two cents and providing us all with your personal opinion of the films in question.

I've already laid out the reasons why I think it might be of benefit to Kino to give the films a chance. Ultimately, it's their choice whether to consider it or ignore it.

For the record, I am not from the boomer generation and have no nostalgic attachment to these films and it's not about "seeing a few women in bikinis."