The Desperate Hours

[yoloswegmaster]

Director William Wyler (Detective Story, Roman Holiday) pairs up two Hollywood legends – Humphrey Bogart (Casablanca) and Fredric March (The Best Years of Our Lives) – for their only appearance together. The result is an electrifying tour de force pitting two giants of the silver screen against each other.

Three escaped cons, led by the ruthless Glenn Griffin (Bogart), force their way into a suburban home, intending to hide out while they await the arrival of an all-important package. But what should have been an overnight stay extends into a protracted hostage situation, pitting Glenn against the embattled family patriarch, Daniel Hilliard (March) – a man with everything to lose.

Adapted by Joseph Hayes (The Third Day) from his own novel and stage play and inspired by actual events, The Desperate Hours is a classic tale of suspense from a master filmmaker at the height of his creative powers, now fully restored from the original VistaVision negative.

LIMITED EDITION CONTENTS

• Brand new restoration by Arrow Films from a 6K scan of the original VistaVision negative
• High Definition (1080p) Blu-ray presentation
• Original restored lossless mono audio
• Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing on all films
• Brand new audio commentary by film historian Daniel Kremer
• Trouble in Suburbia – brand new appreciation of the film by José Arroyo, Associate Professor in Film and Television Studies at the University of Warwick
• The Lonely Man – brand new visual essay by Eloise Ross, co-curator of the Melbourne Cinémathèque
• Scaled Down and Ratcheted Up – brand new audio interview with Catherine Wyler, daughter of director William Wyler
• Lobby cards gallery
• Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Jennifer Dionisio
• Illustrated collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by Philip Kemp and Neil Sinyard

[domino harvey]

An incredible film, and thank God I held out on the Imprint box that I considered picking up just for this movie’s then exclusive inclusion

[ryannichols7]

thrilled Arrow not only went for this but gave it great treatment across the board. I knew a US or UK label would give it a good treatment (Bogart still remains super popular) and glad Arrow is bringing the goods. I wonder if they'd be interested in No Man of Her Own? Kino did Martha Ivers so that's covered

[therewillbeblus]

I grabbed the Imprint box a while back, but at an extremely low price point where no money is going to be saved/spent if I had picked these up instead. However, are all three released titles (the two KLs I mean) better transfers than Imprint's? If so, might have to sell it (though I do like No Man of Her Own!)

[yoloswegmaster]

The KL releases use the same transfers.

[ryannichols7]

I grabbed the Imprint box a while back, but at an extremely low price point where no money is going to be saved/spent if I had picked these up instead. However, are all three released titles (the two KLs I mean) better transfers than Imprint's? If so, might have to sell it (though I do like No Man of Her Own!)

Turning Point and Martha Ivers show 4K scans for Kino. Ivers is a 4K scan for Kino but not Imprint, according to the Imprint listing. both are included presently in KLSC's sale, or are at least $9.99. I'm gonna grab both....I have faith someone will do No Man of Her Own soon enough, Leisen and Stanwyck have both been pretty popular for these labels. hoping for Arrow like this one but I could even see Criterion make a play - Kino would've already had it out if they were doing it.

[Drucker]

Excited for this release, as I love every Wyler film I've managed to see. Also excited that Arrow are managing the restoration given the issues with some of the Paramount restorations.

I'm so curious about the economics of how these labels function, especially undertaking something like this, and I'll use this thread as an excuse to pose some questions. They've paid a fee to license the film, and then of course a 6K restoration in VistaVision must be six figures, right? An MSRP of $30 and 3K copies sold gets you to $90K. And then of course a standard edition release. But I don't imagine this one sells out fast. And I imagine the disc producers/artwork folks / people running the company need some money too. Does Arrow get to make any money from licensing out the new restoration? To theaters, streamers, or other home video companies, since they did the work?

Does Arrow just print money by keeping Candyman and Hellraiser in print, and is that what funds this? Are the economics I'm imagining way off?

[yoloswegmaster]

The Film Foundation states that it costs several hundred thousand dollars for a 2K or 4K digital restoration, so I wouldn't be surprised if it cost way more to do a restoration for a VistaVision. There could be a chance that Paramount paid for the scan themselves and let Arrow takeover from there.

Then again, it doesn't hurt that Arrow were purchased by The Hut Group a couple years ago for £18.5 million (as seen in this financial report), clearly indicating that they have very deep pockets behind them and could afford to do something like this.

Genre films (especially horror titles) have always been popular in the home video scene, so releasing titles like Candyman and the Hellraiser films is pretty much a cheat-code to print money.

[Matt]

The Film Foundation states that it costs several hundred thousand dollars for a 2K or 4K digital restoration

That seems wildly exorbitant to me. Maybe for the scan, reconstruction of physical film elements in poor shape, shipping those elements around the world, full digital restoration including frame-by-frame corrections done by humans, creation of an archival film master and digital master, maybe some DCPs as well.

A basic scan of a 120-minute film with absolutely no restoration can be done for less than $5000.

[Rayon Vert]

Excited for this release, as I love every Wyler film I've managed to see.

I'm curious to know which Wyler films you've seen.

This forum seems very positive towards him and I myself do find he's a lot more consistent than say Cukor, but there's a few of his classics that I'm not crazy about - including the strong fan and forum favorites Roman Holiday and Detective Story. I really like or love Jezebel, Carrie, The Heiress, The Collector, The Best Years of Our Lives of course (that's the top one and I imagine for a lot of people), The Little Foxes, Dodsworth.

Lower-tier but still likeable enough to own for me are Mrs. Miniver, These Three, Friendly Persuasion, The Big Country, The Letter just on the cusp. Slightly below that are this one, The Good Fairy, The Westerner, Ben Hur, Funny Girl, How to Steal a Million, Hell's Heroes.

Really when I think about it these are all at least B minuses for me, so not much else I've seen is below that (Dead End, Counsellor at Law).

Going through my reading notes for this one, I thought it a bit heavy and bloated, the thematics a bit mawkish and contrived, and it played flat for most of the beginning. There were then surprisingly stronger scenes mid-way through, but then it was again uneven until the end. I gave it a B minus. Maybe I'd feel differently with a revisit.

[hearthesilence]

This forum seems very positive towards him and I myself do find he's a lot more consistent than say Cukor, but there's a few of his classics that I'm not crazy about...

I feel like there's quite a few studio era directors that are like that for me, where they have a pretty large body of work (thanks to the way things were set up at the time) and a relatively small portion that I really like. Because they're so prolific, you could be talking about four, six or even seven films, which doesn't seem small at all, but beyond that selection, the rest of their work can come off as mediocre or uninteresting. It's a big difference compared to John Ford or Howard Hawks (or Ozu, Mizoguchi, Godard, etc. for that matter) where even their lesser known films can have a lot to admire and may only seem "minor" because they're overshadowed by some towering masterpieces.

I almost want to use Neil Young vs. Eric Clapton as an example, two very prolific guys who have been recording for nearly 60 years now. Neil Young is simply the greater artist - most of his albums this century may be uneven or well below his high standards, but even the worst has something I can enjoy like Neil's guitar or (usually) a track or two that's a keeper. More importantly, what makes it a Neil Young record in terms of his personality and his sound at least distinguishes the record in a good way even if I never want to play the whole thing again. Clapton has made great records, but on close scrutiny, it's clear he's very limited as an artist. It says a lot that he was easily the standout player in every band he was in during the '60s but rarely the leading vision of those groups. The exception was basically Cream which seemed more or less a contentious democracy. It wasn't until he did a one-off solo LP that he tentatively stepped out on his own, and that was followed by a truly epochal double-album where he had substantial help from Bobby Whitlock among others, but they only managed to make the one double-album. When he went away and came back, he turned out to be a thoroughly mediocre solo artist with no compelling vision - all he had was his formidable guitar playing which wasn't always utilized and conversely seemed limited in itself when it was relied upon too much.

Anyway, to bring it back to Wyler, he seems to bring the best out of his actors - IIRC both Bette Davis AND Laurence Olivier said they learned how to act for a film thanks to him, and they both gave what was arguably their best film performances under his direction. I guess that makes him similar to Cukor in that regard.

[Rayon Vert]

It's a big difference compared to John Ford or Howard Hawks (or Ozu, Mizoguchi, Godard, etc. for that matter) where even their lesser known films can have a lot to admire and may only seem "minor" because they're overshadowed by some towering masterpieces.

In terms of golden age Hollywood directors, for me I think Ford, Hawks and Hitchcock are the only ones in that category (I'm discounting Walsh with whom I've barely scratched the surface. Kazan is another blind spot.) It's hard to compare Welles since he doesn't have that sort of very lengthy filmography (same with Sturges). Lang comes close to joining them (taking his filmography as a whole), though there's a few more clunkers, and I think Mann is the most consistent of the other ones for me, even though his highs may arguably not be as high as these other directors' masterpieces (no less enjoyable for me though). Sirk is pretty consistent too. Fuller less so maybe but all his stuff I find interesting and has a unique flavor that is usually instantly recognizable as him.

[Drucker]

Rayon, I've at least enjoyed every Wyler film I've seen, but Counsellor at Law blew me away when I got to see it in Nitrate. And then I was really blown away by how great Dodsworth was as well when I caught it last year. I think the hangover of how great that film was really whet my appetite to see more.

[hearthesilence]

It's a big difference compared to John Ford or Howard Hawks (or Ozu, Mizoguchi, Godard, etc. for that matter) where even their lesser known films can have a lot to admire and may only seem "minor" because they're overshadowed by some towering masterpieces.

In terms of golden age Hollywood directors, for me I think Ford, Hawks and Hitchcock are the only ones in that category (I'm discounting Walsh with whom I've barely scratched the surface. Kazan is another blind spot.) It's hard to compare Welles since he doesn't have that sort of very lengthy filmography (same with Sturges). Lang comes close to joining them (taking his filmography as a whole), though there's a few more clunkers, and I think Mann is the most consistent of the other ones for me, even though his highs may arguably not be as high as these other directors' masterpieces (no less enjoyable for me though). Sirk is pretty consistent too. Fuller less so maybe but all his stuff I find interesting and has a unique flavor that is usually instantly recognizable as him.

I know Dave Kehr thinks Walsh belongs in that category - David Bordwell has a blog post where he talks about seeing a Walsh program with Kehr's endorsement in mind, but he didn't think Walsh's work held up to that standard.

I'd probably side with Bordwell but I can understand where Kehr's coming from because Walsh has done quite a few really good films and a lot of it is down to his filmmaking and what seems like the ability to bring out a great star performance from guys like Bogart and Cagney, ones that even help define their legend and re-define them as they get older. (Besides them, there's also The Thief of Bagdad with Fairbanks, Me and My Gal with Tracy and Bennett, The Tall Men with Gable, The Man I Love with Lupino and Colorado Territory with McCrea.)

I probably agree that Ford, Hawks and Hitchcock are on a level of their own, and I would definitely add Lang while including his German films too, but I would say Anthony Mann, Jacques Tourneur, Sirk and Fuller would be up there in the pantheon even if they're a step below. There's something about their work that leaves a lasting impression, both in the filmmaking and just the overall worldview they bring to their stories. If Walsh (or Wyler for that matter) aren't on the same level for me, it's because they fall comparatively short in that regard. Kazan's interesting because I thought he became a better filmmaker, but there's an unevenness to his filmography that brings it down a notch. It's not something I'd pinpoint to one thing either - for example, I have mixed feelings about how self-serving On the Waterfront can be about his cooperation with HUAC, even though dramatically it's an incredible film and the acting is rightfully celebrated to an enormous degree.

[Rayon Vert]

I wouldn't have thought of Tourneur as being in that company or category, but I haven't seen enough of his films - makes me curious to see more.

I think Nick Ray is another case of a director with a style that's extremely distinctive like Fuller, but his filmography isn't the size of some of those other ones and it's very uneven. Preston Sturges, as I mentioned, belongs way up there (a notch below Hitchcock et al.) but his filmography is small. Wilder's got more, but also too uneven for me to put him there, although he's made a sizeable number of very good/excellent ones (masterpieces). I think of Lubitsch similarly. Stevens, Capra I would put in the category of Wyler, etc. I guess everyone would have his own opinion of building a Sarris-like tiered pantheon!

[yoloswegmaster]

The Film Foundation states that it costs several hundred thousand dollars for a 2K or 4K digital restoration

That seems wildly exorbitant to me. Maybe for the scan, reconstruction of physical film elements in poor shape, shipping those elements around the world, full digital restoration including frame-by-frame corrections done by humans, creation of an archival film master and digital master, maybe some DCPs as well.

A basic scan of a 120-minute film with absolutely no restoration can be done for less than $5000.

I mean The Hollywood Reporter in 2021 stated that restoration costs can range from $100k-$1 million. MichaelB revealed back in 2015 that it cost €700,000 to do the 2K restorations for Out 1, which would be €900,000 adjusted for inflation today. So yes, restorations are expensive.

[MichaelB]

Out 1 is thirteen hours long, and the restoration costs probably included the four-hour Spectre as well, so it’s not perhaps the best example.

[yoloswegmaster]

Out 1 is thirteen hours long, and the restoration costs probably included the four-hour Spectre as well, so it’s not perhaps the best example.

I forgot that the release include Spectre as well. To be fair though, that is still a very high cost.