Murder by Death (1976) coming from Shout

[BrentLW]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

O’d guess of Twilight Time was interested I’d bet the transfer is why they passed.

Watching Shout Blu .... it always seems to have a frozen sheen of grain on the image, at first I thought it was there for the more diffused outdoor foggy scenes

Indoor scenes look better but it is for sure an older HD master

Sadly I’d almost guess the majority of RaStar films have dated masters.

At the same time I wouldn’t mind owning more titles like The Cheap Detective, California Suite (Maggie Smith won an oscar for her performance in it! And love the dialogue esp between Alan Alda and Jane Fonda.

Only When I Cry is another great Simon film.

And Chapter Two and Seems Like Old Times would be great to have on BLU

I'd kill for I Ought To Be In Pictures and Last of the Red Hot Lovers on Blu.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

This is always a fun little film to watch, but it was never a blockbuster hit and perhaps it never made enough money to warrant a whole new 4k remaster. Perhaps the studio doesn't think it would be worth the investment.

For a film that was initially expected to be a tax writeoff it was a pretty big success in its day - its US first run takings were around $137m at today's prices, making it one of the most profitable Neil Simon films. The problem, which the huge number of deleted posts in this thread when the title was first announced hints, is that it's not a title whose popularity has endured, possibly because it doesn't get much TV play these days because it's an equal opportunities offender from a time when comedy was less PC. Since most remasters are done for TV syndication and home video release is just a by-product these days, there probably isn't enough demand from TV channels to justify a remaster - something which seems to be the case with a disproportionate amount of Columbia's 70s titles.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Aclea

For a film that was initially expected to be a tax writeoff it was a pretty big success in its day - its US first run takings were around $137m at today's prices, making it one of the most profitable Neil Simon films. The problem, which the huge number of deleted posts in this thread when the title was first announced hints, is that it's not a title whose popularity has endured, possibly because it doesn't get much TV play these days because it's an equal opportunities offender from a time when comedy was less PC. Since most remasters are done for TV syndication and home video release is just a by-product these days, there probably isn't enough demand from TV channels to justify a remaster - something which seems to be the case with a disproportionate amount of Columbia's 70s titles.

Ooh, tell me more.

[Aclea]

It was a film everyone expected to bomb almost from birth. Peter Sellers was so convinced he sold off his percentage of the gross before it opened while, according to David Niven, his son arranged some of the financing for the film purely on the understanding it was so bad it would be a tax writeoff* (though it has to be noted he also produced The Eagle Has Landed and Escape to Athena because he thought they were surefire hits). Columbia initially had no faith in it because Ray Stark's last three pictures for the studio had bombed (it was referred to by management as The Black Bird II before it opened) and they thought that when he sold them Rastar Productions he'd dumped all his lemons on them. And then, of course, it became a big hit...

* In the 70s investing in comedies was a popular writeoff, particularly for UK rock bands hit by the high rate of UK tax for top earners (the top rate was 75% with an additional 15% surcharge!). Which is why Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and George Harrison put money into the Monty Python films. Quite a few of Columbia's 70s comedies were beneficiaries of this kind of investment.

[sfmarine]

Just got my copy from Amazon. Did Shout not include a slipcover with this release? I thought usually they were enclosed within the shrink wrap but just wondering.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

Just got my copy from Amazon. Did Shout not include a slipcover with this release? I thought usually they were enclosed within the shrink wrap but just wondering.

No, this one did not include a slipcover.

[martinyfelix]

Has anyone listened to the new audio commentary and can comment on how interesting it is? It's the only exclusive feature to the Shout edition and I'm not sure it's worth importing for me considering the movie is available here in Spain.

[J.M.P.]

Originally Posted by martinyfelix

Has anyone listened to the new audio commentary and can comment on how interesting it is? It's the only exclusive feature to the Shout edition and I'm not sure it's worth importing for me considering the movie is available here in Spain.

Hi martinyfelix, do not buy the Spanish Blu Ray the video quality is BAD upscaled DVD.

The only problem the US version is region A locked, do you have a multi region player ?

If you don't have an ABC compatible player you can get one at: http://www.stegen.com/en/ they ship worldwide and have 1st class customer service.

[Nicage22]

Originally Posted by Aclea

* In the 70s investing in comedies was a popular writeoff, particularly for UK rock bands hit by the high rate of UK tax for top earners (the top rate was 75% with an additional 15% surcharge!). Which is why Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and George Harrison put money into the Monty Python films. Quite a few of Columbia's 70s comedies were beneficiaries of this kind of investment.

That's the first time I've heard that George Harrison did it as a tax writeoff. I thought he did it to help them out. He mortgaged his house and put up 4 million because he wanted to see the movie Life of Brian get made.

http://rockandrollgarage.com/when-ge...life-of-brian/

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by Nicage22

That's the first time I've heard that George Harrison did it as a tax writeoff. I thought he did it to help them out. He mortgaged his house and put up 4 million because he wanted to see the movie Life of Brian get made.

http://rockandrollgarage.com/when-ge...life-of-brian/

He's mixing two things into one. Floyd, Zeppelin and Charisma records put money on Holy Grail. Whether it was as a tax write-off, it's the first I hear of it.

Harrison put money on Life of Brian and yes, nobody mortgages their own house as a tax write-off!

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Nicage22

That's the first time I've heard that George Harrison did it as a tax writeoff. I thought he did it to help them out. He mortgaged his house and put up 4 million because he wanted to see the movie Life of Brian get made.

http://rockandrollgarage.com/when-ge...life-of-brian/

Harrison's not widely publicised￡20,000 investment in Holy Grail was the writeoff. Gilliam and Idle have both discussed the way the financing was structured as a tax deal. From Idle's account of Harrison's covert involvement in The Rutles as advisor it sounds like Harrison was not one of the initial investors but bailed them out on Grail when the film ran out of money.

[dudeabides34]

Just received my copy the other day. Brings my blu count to 601

[classicmaterial]

Hadn't watched this in years and revisited it the other night. So incredibly funny. Peter Falk is amazing in it. I had forgotten how wildly racist it is though. Peter Sellers....wow

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by classicmaterial

Hadn't watched this in years and revisited it the other night. So incredibly funny. Peter Falk is amazing in it. I had forgotten how wildly racist it is though. Peter Sellers....wow

And the reviewer here refers to Sellers' character as "an Oriental" smh.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by classicmaterial

Hadn't watched this in years and revisited it the other night. So incredibly funny. Peter Falk is amazing in it. I had forgotten how wildly racist it is though. Peter Sellers....wow

Can we stop bringing this politically correct bullshit into every thread involving an older film, please? It's sickening. I've watched the film many times over the years and it hasn't influenced in the least my perception of Asian people.

Peter Sellers character is a pastiche of a number of different literary characters from the early 20th century. I presume (probably mistakenly) by now that most people understand it represents the sensibilities of the time that the character was created in and can subsequently put it into context, and that they can actually watch the film without having to call it out when they talk about the film.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Can we stop bringing this politically correct bullshit into every thread involving an older film, please? It's sickening. I've watched the film many times over the years and it hasn't influenced in the least my perception of Asian people.

Peter Sellers character is a pastiche of a number of different literary characters from the early 20th century. I presume (probably mistakenly) by now that most people understand it represents the sensibilities of the time that the character was created in and can subsequently put it into context, and that they can actually watch the film without having to call it out when they talk about the film.

People are allowed to talk about what they want with movies. If you don’t like it or it triggers you so badly, then don’t read it.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

People are allowed to talk about what they want with movies. If you don’t like it or it triggers you so badly, then don’t read it.

Indeed, people are allowed to talk about whatever they want, whether you like it or not --- as in the case of my comments, so with that said...

If my comments bother you so much then don''t read them or put me on Ignore!!!

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Can we stop bringing this politically correct bullshit into every thread involving an older film, please? It's sickening. I've watched the film many times over the years and it hasn't influenced in the least my perception of Asian people.

Peter Sellers character is a pastiche of a number of different literary characters from the early 20th century. I presume (probably mistakenly) by now that most people understand it represents the sensibilities of the time that the character was created in and can subsequently put it into context, and that they can actually watch the film without having to call it out when they talk about the film.

So you recognize that it's problematic, but don't think it should be discussed? That just reminds me of people who say they don't have a problem with a particular minority, but just wish they'd stay in their place/not flaunt it. The very fact that it bothers you is proof that it's still necessary to discuss it. That being said, if anyone says that a film should be censored because of such problematic content, I'll be the first to cry foul.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

So you recognize that it's problematic, but don't think it should be discussed? That just reminds me of people who say they don't have a problem with a particular minority, but just wish they'd stay in their place/not flaunt it. The very fact that it bothers you is proof that it's still necessary to discuss it. That being said, if anyone says that a film should be censored because of such problematic content, I'll be the first to cry foul.

Instead of derailing this thread, perhaps, you can start a new thread about political correctness (and the SJW contingent) in relation to movies?

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Instead of derailing this thread, perhaps, you can start a new thread about political correctness (and the SJW contingent) in relation to movies?

Or you could start a new thread about how you wish people would leave political correctness out of movie discussions. You're the one who derailed the thread.