Curse of the Werewolf

[fantomas 2]

In the recent Universal / Hammer DVD release, "The Brides of Dracula" is presented in its correct image ratio at 1.66

I'm old enough to have seen this films during its first release, in 1960 in Paris, and this format seems quite correct.

But I have a problem with "The Curse of the Werewolf". It was made only some months later, and I also saw it during the original release. If my memories serve well, it was also filmed and presented in the 1.66 image ratio.

The DVD has a 1.85 ratio for this film, and although I didn't really notice damages (heads cropped, etc.) I'm still under the impression that it wasn't the correct ratio. Universal people say they made enquiries about the 'image ratios" used during the original releases - but, they are speaking of the American release of "Curse of the Werewolf", not the British one. And it's a well-knwon fact that almost all movies (excepted perhaps the very old ones) are shown at 1.85 in US theaters, since many years. I watched once a movie in a New York theater and most of the actor's heads were cut !!!

I would like to have your opinion about this current presentation of the Terence Fisher classic. For me, Universal made the same error than Warners with their releases of "The Curse of Frankenstein", "Dracula / Horror of Dracula" and "The Mummy", all of them shown in a totally incorrect image ratio - even if the prints are gorgeous...

[Iain1962]

(fantomas 2 @ Nov 3 2005, 12:33 PM)

In the recent Universal / Hammer DVD release, "The Brides of Dracula" is presented in its correct image ratio at 1.66

I'm old enough to have seen this films during its first release, in 1960 in Paris, and this format seems quite correct.

But I have a problem with "The Curse of the Werewolf". It was made only some months later, and I also saw it during the original release. If my memories serve well, it was also filmed and presented in the 1.66 image ratio.

The DVD has a 1.85 ratio for this film, and although I didn't really notice damages (heads cropped, etc.) I'm still under the impression that it wasn't the correct ratio. Universal people say they made enquiries about the 'image ratios" used during the original releases - but, they are speaking of the American release of "Curse of the Werewolf", not the British one. And it's a well-knwon fact that almost all movies (excepted perhaps the very old ones) are shown at 1.85 in US theaters, since many years. I watched once a movie in a New York theater and most of the actor's heads were cut !!!

I would like to have your opinion about this current presentation of the Terence Fisher classic. For me, Universal made the same error than Warners with their releases of "The Curse of Frankenstein", "Dracula / Horror of Dracula" and "The Mummy", all of them shown in a totally incorrect image ratio - even if the prints are gorgeous...

Hi there.



From what I've read in DVD mags and on forums there seems to be a increasing tendency on US releases of British and European titles of reformatting the image from the European widescreen format of 1.66 (and indeed 1.75) to 1.85 which is the American widescreen format. This particularly affects British works from the 50s and early 60s and a lot of Euro works. Consensus is that the prints are great, etc but it has led to serious cropping problems on some movies (the two early Fisher flicks being most commonly mentioned). Has this also something to do with enhancement for 16:9 TVs?



Cheers.



Hair in the Gate - reviews of arefacts from B-picture, exploitation and DTV entertaintment: HAIR IN THE GATE HOME PAGE

[fantomas 2]

(Iain1962 @ Nov 5 2005, 08:02 PM

Hi there.



From what I've read in DVD mags and on forums there seems to be a increasing tendency on US releases of British and European titles of reformatting the image from the European widescreen format of 1.66 (and indeed 1.75) to 1.85 which is the American widescreen format. This particularly affects British works from the 50s and early 60s and a lot of Euro works. Consensus is that the prints are great, etc but it has led to serious cropping problems on some movies (the two early Fisher flicks being most commonly mentioned). Has this also something to do with enhancement for 16:9 TVs?



Cheers.



Hair in the Gate - reviews of arefacts from B-picture, exploitation and DTV entertaintment: HAIR IN THE GATE HOME PAGE

Probably, Iain - although "The Brides of Dracula" 's image ratio is respected in the recent Universal/Hammer relase AND is enhanced for 16:9.

As a result, it has simply two black stripes, not above and below, but on the sides, and the effect is nice. So I really don't understand why they didn't make the same thing for "Curse".

[Stephen Pickard]

(fantomas 2 @ Nov 3 2005, 12:33 PM)

In the recent Universal / Hammer DVD release, "The Brides of Dracula" is presented in its correct image ratio at 1.66

I'm old enough to have seen this films during its first release, in 1960 in Paris, and this format seems quite correct.

But I have a problem with "The Curse of the Werewolf". It was made only some months later, and I also saw it during the original release. If my memories serve well, it was also filmed and presented in the 1.66 image ratio.

The DVD has a 1.85 ratio for this film, and although I didn't really notice damages (heads cropped, etc.) I'm still under the impression that it wasn't the correct ratio. Universal people say they made enquiries about the 'image ratios" used during the original releases - but, they are speaking of the American release of "Curse of the Werewolf", not the British one. And it's a well-knwon fact that almost all movies (excepted perhaps the very old ones) are shown at 1.85 in US theaters, since many years. I watched once a movie in a New York theater and most of the actor's heads were cut !!!

I would like to have your opinion about this current presentation of the Terence Fisher classic. For me, Universal made the same error than Warners with their releases of "The Curse of Frankenstein", "Dracula / Horror of Dracula" and "The Mummy", all of them shown in a totally incorrect image ratio - even if the prints are gorgeous... :eek:

Hi Fantomas, interesting to read your post as I feel the same about having the Hammer Films' aspect ratios correct. When I read the specs ahead of the release and I contacted Universal to try to find out if what the marketing department had released was true and that the announced 2:1 ratios for "Phantom" and "Captain Clegg" was wrong. Unfortunately I got nowhere with it and the problem didn't bother the majority of people as expressed on the Home Theater Forum and I just let it go. When I watched the discs I realised that on "Captain Clegg" (Night Creatures) they were utilising picture area that is usually covered by the soundtrack and so the 2:1 ratio cropping wasn't as dramatic as it could have been. There is, however, several bad shots of head cropping. The "Phantom" transfer, which to me is the poorest of the lot, is missing information mostly from the bottom but to the average person it is acceptable.

Yes, I agree with you "Curse of the Werewolf" should be 1.66 and "Kiss of the Vampire" should be also. The cinematographer on the film ("Kiss"), Alan Hume, told a friend of mine that it was definately composed for 1.66. The funeral scene at the beginning has never looked right to me on any video transfer. The ratio and the vertical framing has to be just right or the effect is ruined. I was invited by somebody in theatrical restoration to view a print of "Kiss" off the original negative and I requested it to be projected in 1.66 and it looked great. In 1996 I saw a print of it at the Barbican Hammer festival and it had extra footage I had never seen before, a very rare print. Unfortunately the original negative was conformed to the general release version. (There was extra footage shot by Universal in the US and released as "Kiss of Evil" but this was not it. I tried to get Universal to investigate this and to try to recover this footage but have so far failed. There were extra shots when the bats attack the chateau at the end and one brief shot of a female disciple lifting her frock as she sat down. This was obviously too much for the British censors to take!

"Curse of the Werewolf" is now restored to it's full glory and a brief extended shot of a stake being driven into Martita Hunt's heart in "Brides of Dracula" was successfully restored as it already existed in the picture element they used.

It seems that the Japanese version of "Dracula" will never be seen. It definately existed as it has been proven. I wish Warner would go all out to find this version as it would be just as exciting as finding the lost spider pit sequence from "King Kong".

I have enclosed a link to a discussion on the Home Theater Forum about the hammer discs that I added occasional comments to. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/sh...ighlight=Hammer

[Juniper]

Hammer's Curse of the Werewolf is getting a long overdue release on the 4th October.

[John Hamilton]

I hear there are extras on this too-including a new interviews with Warren Mitchell, Catherine Feller and Don Mingaye

[Gerald Lovell]

I hear there are extras on this too-including a new interviews with Warren Mitchell, Catherine Feller and Don Mingaye

That's excellent news. I hope it's an uncut version they use.

[m35541]

Actually, I was hoping it was the original cut UK theatrical version. That would be interesting (I already have the uncut version).

[John Hamilton]

Actually, I was hoping it was the original cut UK theatrical version. That would be interesting (I already have the uncut version).

not sure what version they are using. I have a vague notion it was released in the States sometime recently so I assume its that one. Missed opportunity though not to get Mitchell and Feller onto an audio commentary- especially since they had the latter flown to the UK to record her interview anyway

[m35541]

I would be 99.9% sure that they will have the uncut version since that's the one released by Universal in the US and also available on Spanish (and German I think) DVDs. The Spanish DVD uses the same print as the Universal DVD (ie the US print) - it includes identical 'splices' where previously censored footage has been reinstated.



I am not sure the value of a Warren Michell or Catherine Feller audio commentary. I would doubt that they could remember much about a film made 50 years ago in which they probably did about a week's work. The value of these audio commentaries depends entirely on the competence of the moderator for these old films. I'd rather have a commentary by someone that knew something about the film rather than someone who can't remember anything. On Stranglers of Bombay, for example, they had the writer who was an American and had probably never even visited the UK. He wasn't moderated, got the name of Bray Studios wrong, and could remember so little about the film that he started waffling on about some Hollywood writer's strike.



Mitchell was in quite a lot of Hammer films (in fact lots and lots of films generally) and the interviewer could talk to him about some of the others.



Personally, I'd rather someone like Wayne Kinsey or Denis Meikle do a commentary.

[John Hamilton]

I am not sure the value of a Warren Michell or Catherine Feller audio commentary. I would doubt that they could remember much about a film made 50 years ago in which they probably did about a week's work. The value of these audio commentaries depends entirely on the competence of the moderator for these old films. I'd rather have a commentary by someone that knew something about the film rather than someone who can't remember anything.



Mitchell was in quite a lot of Hammer films (in fact lots and lots of films generally) and the interviewer could talk to him about some of the others.

I can see what you mean Tim but I kinda think if I want the facts and figures I'd read the books, the beauty of personal recollections is that they are personal. I'd rather hear Warren tell me Olly took him for a drive in his car and trashed into a pillar box than read about it. I do agree the moderator is important- Tom Weaver to me is the doyen of the craft, I love his conversations with Richard Gordon.



Its a 20 minute documentary so there will be nothing about Mitchell's other films- Weaver could and would have covered all that in a commentary- like I say a wasted opportunity

[wellendcanons]

I hope it's the uncut version. i always dread edited films. I've never known them be as good.



I would especially like to hear Warren Mitchell and Catherine Feller do an audio commentary together as it would just be interesting to hear their comments on the film. Many audio commentaries from Film or TV are vague when the subject is many years ago, certainly where actors are involved. it can still be interesting though. I find audio commentaries only ever get boring when there is only one person talking or if there are several people all commentating at different segments of the film and aren't in the same room together. All The James Bond commentaries do my head in for that reason. The Carry On and Dr Who commentaries are examples of ones I most like. It's like being in the chat room.



wec

[wellendcanons]

I would certainly like to have heard an audiocommentary of Warren Mitchell and Catherine Feller, with perhaps someone from the crew as well. It's more often than not a missed oppurtunity in my view not to include commentaries. I agree with you that this is one occasion where it certainly has been missed.



wec

[John Hamilton]

I would certainly like to have heard an audiocommentary of Warren Mitchell and Catherine Feller, with perhaps someone from the crew as well. It's always a missed oppurtunity in my view not to include commentaries.



wec

there is a cost element unfortunately- as ell as the cost of doing them the audio commentaries have to submitted separately to tbe BBFC for classification. I did two audio commentaries for 'Room 36' a couple of years ago as well as a 'making of...' documentary, and the audio tracks were canned by the distributor who felt, rightly or wrongly, that the cost of having them classified wasn't justified by any additional sales they bring in. I suspect its the same for Curse of the Werewolf- they will sell the same number of units with or without the commentaries so why bother

[Sgt Sunshine]

Here's the original trailer courtesy of you-tube.......



.....Oliver Reed being chased onto rooftops by an angry mob........Now where have I seen that before....

Hammer films....some of my favourites....

Cheers

Sgt S

[Gerald Lovell]

There's also a marvellous score by Benjamin Frankel.

[JamesM]

there is a cost element unfortunately- as ell as the cost of doing them the audio commentaries have to submitted separately to tbe BBFC for classification. I did two audio commentaries for 'Room 36' a couple of years ago as well as a 'making of...' documentary, and the audio tracks were canned by the distributor who felt, rightly or wrongly, that the cost of having them classified wasn't justified by any additional sales they bring in. I suspect its the same for Curse of the Werewolf- they will sell the same number of units with or without the commentaries so why bother

John, the BBFC claim that "nearly all commentaries" require classification yet clearly most have not. Some companies follow their word but not all of them have and, if they require them now, then all releases that are on sale in the UK require them but if you search for commentaries on the BBFC website. You do not have to classify all content on the DVD. In fact, the BBFC advises you to make a note of the items that are not being submitted for classification when you submit a DVD. You only have to abide the Video Recordings Act (1984). The BBFC have now recognized that audio commentaries are essentially new videos as they play with the video of the film or tv programme. I can agree with that statement. This was the limit of the legal advice they received. Their subsequent claim that they therefore require classification was their own. What they should have said was the all commentaries require "consideration for" classification. The VRA allows videos that are designed to inform to be exempt providing they do not fall foul of the exemptions to the exemption.



I can tell you now that I have pointed this argument out to the BBFC by email. I never received a reply to my email but when I called they admitted they had received it. They conceded verbally to me that I had a good point but were seemingly reluctant to admit this in writing. If they had disagreed with me they would have told me so in a reply.



If you don't believe me, take a look at Amazon and see how many of the DVDs with audio commentaries have been classified for their audio commentaries on the BBFC site. The only commentaries that must always be classified are those that are performed in character as they are pure entertainment. Write to the BBFC and challenge them on this if you want to find out for yourself. I have produced many audio commentaries for UK DVD companies and none of them were classified because I pointed this out to them and they agreed entirely. If you want me to help persuade the producers of this DVD that they do not need to classify such commentaries.



Having been released previously, interviews and commentaries will increase sales as it will entice people to double dip and can also raise the retail price but I agree, many of those wishing to buy the film for the first time would buy it anyway. It is such a pit Anthony Hinds has not been involved in the production of extra material.

[John Hamilton]

I can tell you now that I have pointed this argument out to the BBFC by email. I never received a reply to my email but when I called they admitted they had received it. They conceded verbally to me that I had a good point but were seemingly reluctant to admit this in writing.

Somehow that comes as no surprise to me! I agree with you btw on Tony Hinds what a tradgey if he was to pass on without ever committing his thoughts to disc

[Juniper]

I hear there are extras on this too-including a new interviews with Warren Mitchell, Catherine Feller and Don Mingaye

No extras I'm afraid.

[Gerald Lovell]

No extras I'm afraid.

Drat it! I'll just stick with what I've got already then.



On the matter of commentaries, I do prefer those that mix performers as well as behind the scenes crew. That said, one of the best ever for me was the original commentary on The Spy Who Loved Me, where the contributors were apparently quaffing wine as they went along and got pretty merry and very funny as the film played out.