Hello everybody, DAN THE MAN is back. In case you all were wondering where i have been, this ongoing thread and i hope it is ongoing will deal with films that in recent years or decades have not been getting much or in some cases nearly no exposure in many markets. It could be TV, cable or free, Video or DVD. As we all know there has been hundreds of thousands of feature lenght films made over the decades. Hey we are only about 15 years or so from the 100th anniversary of sound films. My where does the time go?Even though we have more cable stations then ever before , there is no way they can handle the bulk of films. Not that they would really care to try anyway. Net flix is helpful but very incomplete, free TV for the most part have abandoned their time for films. Something that was a stable for them decades ago. Video put out alot, but they are history. DVD has put out alot but their future looks bleak and for all they have put out, like video so much still to be done. Yes the computer, Google's YOU TUBE, has become a big big help and as i already mention and will continue to mention, it is often a sought of a salvation, the last hope to find films you can't find anywhere else, God Bless it. So i hope our great expert friend Bob Dimicci, will as often as he can be the catcher, when i the pitcher throws the ball or better yet the obscure films at him.I hope also the folks out there will write in about these films , i feel a thread like this can not only be imformative but also helpful for movie fans looking for some of these films. That's why giving any info where these films might be now would be great-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BLUEBEARD-72- Yes i am on a Cinerama releasing streak because many films release by Cinerama are hard finds these days, like this fun effort with Richard Burton Joey Heatherton[i believe her only nude scene], Racquel Welch, Virni Lisi, Sybill Danning, a solid Music score by Ennio Morricone, some great sly lines, beautiful color decors and sets etc etc, Film got a pretty good theatrical release back in 72, got shown once on the ABC Tuesday late night movie decades ago [cut to shreds of course] but has basically been ignored on free Tv ,cable TV. Did get put on video way back in the 80's. How about DVD? You can however check it out currently on good old You Tube, any comments
Yes our friend JS Walsh is the MAN who came up with the brillant idea of having one thread like this, i notice in a subtle modest way he wanted this to be kept a secret, but you know how it goes[ha-ha]
I've never seen BLUEBEARD but I've heard more than once that it's a must-see for those of us who like over-the-top movies. I didn't know Morricone scored it, though. I heard the art direction is very memorable, but I don't know much about it.
I have a friend who might be able to help you find some of these movies, btw. If you get a chance sometime you should post a list of the ones you've given their own threads so I can e-mail them and get some answers on availability. But don't tell too many people.
(P.S. I'm not talking about anything shady or illegal, but...well, we'll see.)
BLUEBEARD was a 1972 French-Italian-German coproduction produced by Alexander Salkind, who later in the 1970s would have his greatest successes with THE THREE MUSKETEERS, THE FOUR MUSKETEERS, and SUPERMAN. BLUEBEARD was helmed by veteran director Edward Dmytryk, his first film since 1968’s SHALAKO. The film was made on location in Budapest and Rome, with interiors at DEAR S.P.A. Studios in Rome. BLUEBEARD was one of three Richard Burton films to be distributed by Cinerama Releasing in 1972, the others being HAMMERSMITH IS OUT and THE ASSASSINATION OF TROTSKY.
While discussing the film with a reporter, Dmytryk remarked that “The picture was made purely for entertainment. I expect the critics to rap us.” He was correct—the film took a critical drubbing. The New York Times called it a “foolish camp horror film,” the Los Angeles Times called it “124 minutes of unrelieved boredom and morbidity,” and Roger Ebert termed it “sheer awfulness.”
The film has been released on DVD twice—in 2000 by Anchor Bay and in 2007 by Lionsgate. Ennio Morricone’s score has been on CD a number of times, most recently in 2011 from GDM. Here is the trailer and some of Morricone’s music:
Whoever had the idea for putting all these films together in one thread is a genius!
Amen!! Haha...
I don't wish to derail the thread Dan, but you say the future of DVD format looks bleak? Have I missed something? Looks just rosy to me!
Even with the advent of Blu-ray, the DVD market seems to be flourishing, and I would lay money on these films you mention being far more likely to get a DVD release than anything else....
Anyway, 'nuff said...back to the movies...and Bob's startling knowledge and recall...
Facets is located in Chicago and they've been a great source of VHS tapes & DVDs for me since the early 1990s.
I feel one isn't getting into "obscure" films until one is at a level of hunting for Polish or Hungarian or Czech cinema (for instance) on home video.
I'd be hesitant to call the 1972 BLUEBEARD as obscure due to current lack of distribution and availibility.
BLUEBEARD had a high-profile cast and a significant director. It's not so much that films are obscure as it is the viewing audiences becoming less acquainted with our vast film heritage from any given country including one's homeland.
I base the idea of obscurity on lack of cable showings, DVD's that are hard to find, maybe never release on video or so hard to find now on video at some pawn shop. Remember alot of us here are the small percentage of people who will search a bit and then find the film, and say it is not obscure, because we are so use to the lifestyle we live, being film lovers and fanatics. But to a averge film goer which film out of these would be called obscure in recent history?-------National Lampoon vacation-Rambo-Patton- the longest day- Bluebeard- obvious answer right. The other 4 are on cable often in the past 2 decades. They can be gotten pretty easily on DVD's. They also got good video releases years ago, so going into pawn shops or flea markets or house sales you might find it, plus you can even probably find them on You Tube. You have to be a bit knowlegable about the history of film distrubution of a film to call a film obscure- Let's look at another example. which of these films are obscure?- King Kong-33- The maltese falcon- Cat people- Gunga din- Calvacade-another pretty easy answer if you know films and their exposure. The last one right? Even though in 33 it won an award'In 1975 Seizure played with The beast must die on a double feature in many parts of America. In recent years The beast must die has been shown too death on AMC to millions of Americans on Friday nights, However Seizure has barely ever been on cable, got a small video and DVD release. So i would say it is a semi obscure film in recent history.Of course on this board are people from all over the world, so what maybe obscure in America may not be in Britain. What is obscure in England may not be in Italy etc etc, Of course there are some films that are thought to or might be lost. So obviously they can be called very obscure. Another thing i get the impression from the comments so far that you think this is some personal want list? It is not, it is just a examination of hard to get films for some people. Now if somebody was wondering where Bluebeard was, now with the info given they can look into it. I caught it on You tube the other night and enjoy it alot, nice print on You tube.
BEN-72-This sequel to the hit Willard was also release by Cinerama, it didn't do as good as Willard in it's theatrical release , but since it has followed a simaliar path to willard, it was shown twice on the CBS network in the 70's was in syndication in the 80's was on TBS/TNT in the 90's and then it vanished from the airwaves, was on video in the 80's DVD? folks-It;s greatest fame was the hit song that came from it by Michael Jackson. Be nice if TCM UNDERGROUND OR THIS would dig them out and show them back to back, how about a double feature DVD, saw Ben on YOU TUBE a couple of months ago, ok print- any comments?
The coming attraction for Bluebeard was great, right on the mark, i always loved that film when i saw it as a teenager years ago and seeing it the other day, just a fun tongue in cheek classy film, my god some of the greatest colorful sets you will ever see, i also love the dialogue, so sharp[reminds me of Price's House on haunted hill] and Joey Heatherton what a delicious treat, yum yum yum.yum--yum yum yum yum----- yum yum yum yum yum yum yum yum,remember that jingle from a cat food commercial.
As mentioned by Dan, BEN was the sequel to 1971’s WILLARD. A month after WILLARD (one of the top-grossing films of 1971) was released, Bing Crosby Productions and Cinerama Releasing announced plans to make a sequel. Mort Briskin repeated his role as producer, with the screenplay again written by Gilbert A. Ralston. Although WILLARD was based on the book “Ratman’s Notebooks” by Stephen Gilbert, the screenplay for BEN was original, using only the character of the rat, Ben. Phil Karlson (WALKING TALL) took over directing chores from Daniel Mann. Child actor Lee Harcourt Montgomery played the young boy who befriends Ben in the film. Although the onscreen credits “introduce” Montgomery, he had previously appeared in the 1971 Disney film THE MILLION DOLLAR DUCK.
The score for BEN was by Walter Scharf, who also composed “Ben’s Song” (with lyrics by Don Black), which was sung by Michael Jackson. The song received an Academy Award nomination for Best Song and won a Golden Globe for Best Original Song. It became one of Jackson’s most popular hits and was recorded by several other singers. But how many people hearing it today realize that it is a love song sung to a rat?
Portions of the picture were shot at the same Wilshire Blvd. mansion, built in 1908 and formerly owned by Howard Verbeck among others, that was used in WILLARD. Moe Di Sesso, who trained the 500 rats used in WILLARD, trained approximately 4,000 rats for BEN. The rat playing Ben won a Patsy Award honoring animal performers. Although the pressbook for Ben implied that there would be another sequel, featuring 10,000 rats, to be released in 1973, that film was not made.
BEN was released in June 1972, 12 months after WILLARD had premiered. The critical reaction was not as enthusiastic for BEN as it had been for WILLARD. While a few critics agreed with the Los Angeles Times that BEN was ‘scary and diverting,” most sided with Time that the new film was a “sleazy slice of horror for the pre-high school set.” The Village Voice’s William Paul had an interesting take when he noted that “the relationship of the boy to his pet rat becomes surprisingly moving in the way old-fashioned animal movies used to be,” thereby making BEN “closer in spirit to LASSIE COMES HOME than a horror film.” And Joseph Gelmis of Newsday ended his negative review by saying that “the scurrying little stars of this animal horror flick made me hope again that someone was smart enough to shoot a documentary on the training of the rats as actors. That is the film, as I felt originally with WILLARD, that I want to see.”
BEN was issued on a Paramount cassette in 1990, but has never had a DVD release. I saw BEN in the theater, and only subsequently saw WILLARD on TV.
Facets is located in Chicago and they've been a great source of VHS tapes & DVDs for me since the early 1990s.
I feel one isn't getting into "obscure" films until one is at a level of hunting for Polish or Hungarian or Czech cinema (for instance) on home video.
I'd be hesitant to call the 1972 BLUEBEARD as obscure due to current lack of distribution and availibility.
BLUEBEARD had a high-profile cast and a significant director. It's not so much that films are obscure as it is the viewing audiences becoming less acquainted with our vast film heritage from any given country including one's homeland.
ToneRow,
"Obscure" is a relative term, though, and any thread that pushes beyond what's readily available through Amazon or Netflix is aces with me.
SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DEADLY NECKLACE-64- Christopher lee is Holmes, Terence Fischer directed this film made in Germany- was shown often in the late 60's and 70's in syndication on many local TV stations in America, then bingo- it vanished, some sources said the film was lost, however other sources found out it was hiding not lost, i found a VHS copy sent to me from Spain in the 90's others have found copies scattered around the world.Any update on this film of late, i knew at one time a Sherlock Holmes, club and the search of trying to track down the history of Sherlock on film, was those Peter Cushing's TV series[where a few episodes have been found ]and this effort. Any comments?
SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DEADLY NECKLACE never received a U.S. theatrical release, but was instead released directly to U.S. television. It was a German, French and Italian co-production filmed mostly on a German soundstage, with some location shooting in Ireland and London. Loosely based on the Arthur Conan Doyle story "The Valley of Fear," the screenplay is credited to Curt Siodmak, though the German producers reportedly tampered with it. Shot in black and white, the film has more of a feel of the then popular Edgar Wallace-inspired German mystery movies, with shades of Universal's 30's and 40s Holmes series. Its producers shot the movie without live sound, and all voices were dubbed in post-production. Unfortunately, Christopher Lee and Thorley Walters (who played Holmes and Watson) did not dub their own voices for the English-language version. The film also includes Senta Berger and Leon Askin.
Director Terrence Fisher and Christopher Lee had both previously been involved in a Sherlock Holmes film—Hammer’s THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1959). In that film, however, it was Peter Cushing and not Lee who played Holmes (Lee played Sir Henry Baskerville). While that film had a score by James Bernard, DEADLY NECKLACE received undistinguished music from Martin Slavin.
SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DEADLY NECKLACE is available on YouTube and on several public domain DVD labels. Here’s an online review of the film:
THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET-44-This was a top notch thriller which was remade by hammer in 59 The man who could cheat death-59- with Christopher Lee and Anton Diffring, Nils Asther is fine as a man who finds eternal life in dubious ways, Miklos Roza 's score is a definite plus, The film was in syndication way way back in the 60's early 70's then it vanished from free TV, cable has ignore it for decades[Calling TCM] couldn't find it on video - DVD folks?-Movies like this and it's obscurity[many of them are] can be annoying when people may say something negative about the Horror SCiFi genre, yet there are many good genre films most people don't see, this is one of them.caught up with it on YES, good old You Tube- however this one has a weak print, it skips as well at times, Any comments?
THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET was based upon a play of the same name by Barre Lyndon, which had premiered in London in 1939. The film version was released in late 1944 and opened in New York on 19 January 1945. Alan Ladd was originally slated to have his first lead role in this film. (Ladd's film debut had been in 1942’s “This Gun for Hire.”) After Ladd, Albert Dekker was considered for the lead, but eventually Nils Asther was selected for the part.
Although it was set in London, the film was made entirely at Paramount studios, except for scenes set at Victoria Station, which were shot at the M-G-M studios. While the YouTube version of the film is complete, some prints of the film are missing a reel, and when the American Film Institute was compiling a plot description, the catalogers had to consult the Release Dialogue Script in the Paramount Collection at the AMPAS Library. That, and the fact that Paramount films of this era now belong to Universal may be the reasons why no video of the film has been forthcoming.
A piano recording by Daniel Robbins of the Waltz and Love Theme from Rozsa’s score appeared on a 1994 Intrada CD—“Miklos Rozsa: Film Music for Piano”
The ending to this fine film was a very touching ending, one of the best, if you get You Tube, give it a shot you might find it very enjoyable, after viewing it recently i would say it is one of the best genre films i have seen,the remake The man who could could cheat death was also a fine film, i loved them both.
WHAT BECAME OF JACK AND JILL-72-Better yet for people who saw this film in America on a double feature in 72 with Strange vengence of Rosalie, what became of this film, barely if ever on free TV or cable for decades, very rare Video release, how about DVD- found it to be a so -so effort, can't find it on YOU TUBE, any comments?the last time i actually saw this crime drama was on a triple feature program on 42 street in New York in 78
WHAT BECAME OF JACK AND JILL? was a co-production of Britain’s Amicus Productions and the ABC Pictures-affiliated Palomar Pictures International. Amicus’ Max J. Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky produced. The film was released in the U.S. by 20th Century Fox on 16 June 1972, on (as noted by Dan) a double bill with THE STRANGE VENGEANCE OF ROSALIE.
The working title of the film was “Romeo and Juliet 1971.” According to Daily Variety, the working title was to have “a satirical subtitle, ‘A Gentle Tale of Sex, Violence, Corruption and Murder.’” The production was filmed in and around London, with interiors at Shepperton Studios.
The picture marked the only feature film directed by Australian-born television director Bill Bain (1930—1982). Among the many shows directed by Bain were numerous episodes of the British television series “Upstairs, Downstairs” (1971—1975). Carl Davis scored the film and co-wrote several songs (heard as source music) with George Howe.
Upon its release, the film was reviewed by a few New York critics but no other national critics reviewed it. The New York Times called it a “not so extraordinary story . . . the main achievement of which is to work from a beginning, to a middle, to something like a logical ending.” The New York Daily News was less kind, calling it “a hopelessly grim, sordid little drama.” And Cue magazine called it “heavy-going, garish, and mean, without any compensating level of involvement.” Variety cited the only positive notes by giving the film “points for topflight art direction and photography,” and praising some of the cast.
It’s hard to say where the rights to the film may lie—possibly with distributor Fox, but more likely with Palomar Pictures, whose films generally reside with Disney.
