Where do you get a decent print of this? - The Old Dark House (1932) Discussion

[–] Trebaby 18 years ago

I was wondering the same thing...the quality of the film as shown on TCM is absolutely just as bad as any of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films they sometimes schedule...Pity...seems like an interesting film. And to think, Gloria Stuart is still with us (as of this writing). Is this the same quality of the Kino DVD? I haven't seen it (or have I?).

reply

[–] teejay6682 17 years ago

sometimes u just gotta put up with it. sometimes it should be a better print.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hippieboy65 17 years ago

I saw a bad copy of this as well. They (or someone ) should really re-release it on dvd as there are a lot of people who don't know james whale's movies.

reply

[–] Helldresser 17 years ago

DITTO on the Kino release. I was introduced to this film via VHS and bad 'independent' (read: bootleg purple) DVD's and so far, the Kino is the best. But truthfully, it's not super great, but it gets the job done all historical points considered. The film is needing a MASSIVE restoration ala METROPOLIS that Kino put out. It is however, cool to have it 'officially', considering, like say Browning's FREAKS, it was a pain to find decent-anything on DVD til that showed up...domestically/US at least.

"Phuc Peace, Time To Kill Everyone!"

reply

[–] robertgraham1 17 years ago

I have it! I have a superb 16mm print of this with the original soundtrack from the sound on disc system which adds to the atmosphere as it has not been digitally cleaned (butchered). This is extremely hard to find on 16mm worldwide.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bheck1 17 years ago

Remember, the only printable copy of the film was already decomposing in spots. I think Kino's version is as good as it gets. In the case of Metropolis, many nitrate and safety elements survived including a partial camera negative in great shape.

reply

[–] Incantatore 12 years ago

I read in several places the museum of modern art or cinema refused to allow Kino access to their pristine vault 35mm copy. Hence the rather soft, dupey 16mm transfer Kino were forced to go with.
One hopes now that they're re-releasing titles on blu ray, they'll gain access to a stunning 35mm print for a re-release, at some point. Well I can but dream.

reply

[–] manwithnoname-2 17 years ago

Just wanted to let everyone know that the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto (Bay Area California) is showing this in the theaters on September 13th and 14th 2007 in a double-billing with The Mummy (Original version). They are a house for old/original vintage films, and they are usually in excellent condition.

www.stanfordtheatre.org

reply

[–] kaylynn36 17 years ago

manwithnoname-2:

Thank you for sharing the Stanford Theater website. What an awesome place! I wish we had something like this in Texas.

kaylynn36

reply

[–] hachmom-1 17 years ago

When I was first reading about this film in the late 60s early 70's it was thought to be one of the great lost early horror films (along with the first Mystery in the Wax Museum) so I guess we should be grateful we have anything to watch at all with both these films

It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices

reply

[–] jrandazzofilms-1 16 years ago

I saw this at a theater in New Jersey last year as part of a Karloff double feature... the print they used was on loan from the Library of Congress and was restored... it looked MUCH better than the DVD that's out.

I actually wrote an article on the night here: http://www.pwipop.com/features.php?feature=12

reply

[–] Incantatore 12 years ago

jrandazzofilms-1 that made for a fascinating read, thanks for your effort.

I do hope this will receive a Kino blu ray release from the LoC print sooner rather than later!

reply

[–] VinnieRattolle 14 years ago

Around the early '60s, Universal had let the rights to the movie lapse and they had no interest in trying to preserve it, but cult movie director (and friend of Jimmy Wales) Curtis Harrington somehow got somebody at the studio to unearth it. What he was presented with was a film that had an odor of vinegar which was rapidly deteriorating. Harrington had a new print made, and he later claimed that if he hadn't gotten to the movie when he did it would've been lost forever. Presumably the prints that now exist are dupes of Harrington's print.

Unfortunately, that's happened in too many instances. Some films like "Metropolis" are lucky in that multiple prints and original materials survived. In the case of "The Old Dark House," what you see is most likely all there is (same goes with the severely truncated cult classic "Freaks," which was mentioned above). If the movie wasn't a massive moneymaker, the studios simply weren't interested in trying to preserve them.

reply

[–] Incantatore 12 years ago

Kino Lober mentioned on Facebook January 2012, they have nothing to report for any potential rerelease on dvd/blu ray, yet!

reply

[–] peterquinn70 12 years ago

Of course I'm in the minority here, but I think the print I saw (Australia, 1992), was fine. I thought the dirt and scratches, hairs,etc., just added to the decrepit presence of the house. I think it doubled the spook factor for me, but as i said, I'm probably in the minority.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yogami 8 years ago

Good news! Cohen Media Group is teaming up with Universal to give this film a 4k restoration. Hopefully it will be released on Blu-ray and DVD in time for Halloween of 2017.

http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22996

reply

[–] genplant29 7 years ago

That's wonderful! While the Kino-release print is okay, I've always hoped that one day this film would get an actual proper deluxe restoration, and it's terrific to now learn that, indeed, will be happening.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]