UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Once Upon a Time in the West -- in 4k UHD (16 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

Meanwhile it is also confirmed that the closing music is again the wrong one ... sigh ...

Morricone composed a piece which is called Finale, which, as a variation of the Jill/America theme, only appears in that form at the end of the movie. It's the last track on the soundtrack LP, and it would run exactly until the film ends, and it did so in the theatrical version and in the 178 min version. It is quite stupid to cut that off. And the reprise of the Cheyenne theme doesn't make any sense. Funnily in the audio commentary Frayling says at the moment of Cheyenne's death that "that leitmotif has finished". It should, naturally. It seems he did not watch then the DVD to the end ...

Is the closing music "wrong," or is this the generic Paramount

Hey Robert! Good chatting with you, my friend.



I agree, I think the master is impressive and does justice to the film. I just wish more people had the chance to see it looking its best on disc. IMHO, the 4K disc looks very good and most people will be pleased. But the larger file is gorgeous, and would certainly have fit into a disc.



That's a fair question. But here's my response: The vast majority of disc consumers remain happy with DVD. A smaller percentage of them still are avid Blu-ray consumers. 4K enthusiasts represent the smallest slice of all and they are no in any way shape or form "average" consumers—they're the superfans, the cinephiles, high-end home theater enthusiasts, and collectors. I would argue that many of them actually care about this stuff. I simply think the studios should try to remember that fact when they make some of these decisions. Physical 4K UHD is in no way, shape, or form a mass market product. Nor will it ever be. So I think a little more effort to make it premium is in order by the major studios, especially when the boutique labels seem to have no trouble doing so with much smaller budgets.

You know, when I can buy Paramount's Little Darlings (1980) in 4K UHD from Vinegar Syndrome, and it comes it a bespoke fabric-covered slipcase with foil stamping and a similarly-adorned hard Mediabook with liner notes and exquisite artwork, you would certainly think that Paramount's marquee Sergio Leone title would merit a little more effort too. And I'm absolutely certain that if Paramount had licensed the title to Kino Lorber Studio Classics, that company would have released it on a 100GB disc with lossless mono. They actually tried to do this, but Paramount chose to release the title themselves.

I'm just saying. -BH

As you're certainly more than aware, it's far easier for a privately held company to make a decision to highlight one of their releases with over-the-top packaging, while a studio release must abide by internal financial dictates.

Also, a huge difference between VS and any of the studios in that VS has sell-through via their own website at full freight. The studios receive a pittance, especially from the likes of Amazon.

 

[Robert Harris]

I sampled the Arrow 4k of Barbarella, comparing data throughput with OUaTitW.

Barbarella tops out in the 90s, while OUaT ends up around 70.

Same stock. Different taking mechanism.

Grain in Barbarella comes to the fore in a non-objectionable way, while OUaT is reduced.

And both look superb from the oft-noted NSD.

 

[madfloyd]

So... I compared the new 4k with my Bluray. I have both ripped to hard drives and viewed it on my PC. I could immediately see lack of detail in the 4k compared to the Bluray, but of course my PC monitor doesn't show HDR very well. So I compared both on my projection setup and I was surprised that on a larger screen I didn't perceive the lost detail in the same way. Perhaps it really needs to be seen in HDR.

In any case, while the bluray looks filmic, it also has a pretty rough look to it - like the source wasn't great or the transfer suffers from being older. The 4k comes across in a superior way to my eyes and while I know detail has been lost, I'm not finding it distracting like some other recent DNR messes. I can see how Bill Hunt says there's a significant difference between the 4k disc and the Kaleidescape version and I do wish I had the latter.

The only real distraction I had (keep in mind I only watched the first 15 minutes) is some subtle grain in blue skies that were frozen during a pan - which I assume is encoding related.

I will hope that we get a better version one day but I am going to keep this disc as I don't think I want to watch my Bluray version instead of the 4k.

 

[Grubert]

Is the closing music "wrong," or is this the generic Paramount

Just wrong I think, and the article by Lloyd describes how that could happen.
According to that one it was most likely correct even in the short versions. In all the 4 versions before, the Finale was played until the film ends (it seems even in the freeze frame version).

 

[gregstaten]

Our little theater will soon be running Oklahoma! And we’ve requested 500, which is especially helpful for Todd-AO.

Oh my! Does that mean there's a 4K DCP of the Todd-AO version of Oklahoma!??? Man would I love to watch that!

(BTW, the recent recording of the complete Oklahoma! score by John Wilson and the Sinfonia of London on Chandos (in 5.1 no less!) is spectacular!!!)

 

[Dave H]

Hey Robert! Good chatting with you, my friend.



I agree, I think the master is impressive and does justice to the film. I just wish more people had the chance to see it looking its best on disc. IMHO, the 4K disc looks very good and most people will be pleased. But the larger file is gorgeous, and would certainly have fit into a disc.



That's a fair question. But here's my response: The vast majority of disc consumers remain happy with DVD. A smaller percentage of them still are avid Blu-ray consumers. 4K enthusiasts represent the smallest slice of all and they are no in any way shape or form "average" consumers—they're the superfans, the cinephiles, high-end home theater enthusiasts, and collectors. I would argue that many of them actually care about this stuff. I simply think the studios should try to remember that fact when they make some of these decisions. Physical 4K UHD is in no way, shape, or form a mass market product. Nor will it ever be. So I think a little more effort to make it premium is in order by the major studios, especially when the boutique labels seem to have no trouble doing so with much smaller budgets.

You know, when I can buy Paramount's Little Darlings (1980) in 4K UHD from Vinegar Syndrome, and it comes it a bespoke fabric-covered slipcase with foil stamping and a similarly-adorned hard Mediabook with liner notes and exquisite artwork, you would certainly think that Paramount's marquee Sergio Leone title would merit a little more effort too. And I'm absolutely certain that if Paramount had licensed the title to Kino Lorber Studio Classics, that company would have released it on a 100GB disc with lossless mono. They actually tried to do this, but Paramount chose to release the title themselves.

I'm just saying. -BH

Paramount will be releasing Chinatown on a 100GB disc. Go figure.

 

[SD_Brian]

Paramount will be releasing Chinatown on a 100GB disc. Go figure.

Probably to make room on the movie disc for the bonus features, rather than including a separate Blu-ray like they did with OUaTitW.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Probably to make room on the movie disc for the bonus features, rather than including a separate Blu-ray like they did with OUaTitW.

The Blu-ray contains The Two Jakes with this 4K/UHD release.

 

[Kyle_D]

Back to the dual vs triple layer discussion, I wonder if there’s any publicly available data on the yield and return rates for each type of disc. Anecdotally, I’ve had to return/exchange several triple layer discs in the past 24 months due to pressing issues at the layer change. I’ve actually never been able to finish Kino’s UHD of For a Few Dollars More due to a layer change defect that I did not discover until Amazon’s return window had closed. I’ve never had an issue with a dual layer disc.

 

[Robert Harris]

Back to the dual vs triple layer discussion, I wonder if there’s any publicly available data on the yield and return rates for each type of disc. Anecdotally, I’ve had to return/exchange several triple layer discs in the past 24 months due to pressing issues at the layer change. I’ve actually never been able to finish Kino’s UHD of For a Few Dollars More due to a layer change defect that I did not discover until Amazon’s return window had closed. I’ve never had an issue with a dual layer disc.

You might try reaching out directly to Kino.

 

[Kyle_D]

You might try reaching out directly to Kino.

I might still try, but the FAQ on their site suggests they will not exchange discs unless purchased directly from them:

My Disc Does Not Play, What Do I Do?​

Updated on July 20, 2022
Please read this before contacting us:
- Make sure you have latest firmware installed on your machine. We are required to use latest copyright protections.
- For Blu-rays, you must have a Blu-ray player.
- For 4K UHD discs, you must have a 4K compatible player.
- Majority of our discs are copy-protected to work in the United States and Canada. Check sites such as DVDBeaver who keeps a tally on region protection.
- We do not warrant our discs will play on region free players since these machines are altered to bypass protections and often contain dated firmware.
- If you wish to return or exchange you must return to original seller. If you purchased at Kino Lorber, fill in the form below.

Kino Lorber - Experience Cinema

The Best In World Cinema - including European, Asian, Silent, documentary, and American Independent titles. Kino Lorber sells videos and dvds directly to customers through its online store and mail order catalog.

kinolorber.com

 

[Dave H]

Probably to make room on the movie disc for the bonus features, rather than including a separate Blu-ray like they did with OUaTitW.

You're probably right.

With both films, that's about 4.5 hours worth of content on that disc.

 

[haineshisway]

This thread is giving me a headache. Let's get some things straight here. Apparently, I'm the only one who actually saw this movie in 1969. I not only saw it, I saw it every day and night for over two weeks. So, the film did NOT open in July, it opened on May 28 in two NY theaters. It went wide in mid-July, which is when I saw it. For a few weeks that summer, I worked at the Albermarle Theater in Brooklyn before I went off and did summer stock. So, for the two weeks it played there, I saw it at least twice daily. At the end of the first week it had been cut down to the short version.

As to this 178-minute version - that was only available in Italy and Paramount does not own those rights, so I'm not sure how or even why they'd include it. By the time it reached LA on July 23, it had already been shortened - it never played LA full length - in fact, interestingly, the running time listed in Kevin Thomas' LA Times review is 135 minutes. It played on a double bill with El Dorado. Now, if you want my opinion on things, after the exclusive run in NY it was decided to cut down the film. That work happened in June and early July. I believe that the cut prints weren't ready in time for the opening of the wide release - no second features anywhere in the wide release and start times that match the long version. I think they shipped the short prints as soon as they were ready and Paramount recalled the long version at the end of week one. That's my guess. So, the ONLY people who EVER saw the film uncut saw it in Manhattan or in a couple of theaters in its wide release (which wasn't all that wide back then). I remember watching the first show at the end of the first week and thinking, "What happened to all those scenes that suddenly aren't here?

 

[lark144]

This thread is giving me a headache. Let's get some things straight here. Apparently, I'm the only one who actually saw this movie in 1969. I not only saw it, I saw it every day and night for over two weeks. So, the film did NOT open in July, it opened on May 28 in two NY theaters. It went wide in mid-July, which is when I saw it. For a few weeks that summer, I worked at the Albermarle Theater in Brooklyn before I went off and did summer stock. So, for the two weeks it played there, I saw it at least twice daily. At the end of the first week it had been cut down to the short version.

As to this 178-minute version - that was only available in Italy and Paramount does not own those rights, so I'm not sure how or even why they'd include it. By the time it reached LA on July 23, it had already been shortened - it never played LA full length - in fact, interestingly, the running time listed in Kevin Thomas' LA Times review is 135 minutes.

I saw it at the Loew's Orpheum on opening day, then in July at the Albermarle, which was around the corner from where I was living at the time, on East 21st Street, but it was a little later in the run and had already been cut down.

BTW, I loved going to the last show on Saturday night at the Albermarle, for when you left the theater, there would be vendors outside with both the Sunday Times & News. I think the Times was 35 cents and the News was a quarter. Ah, those were the days.

 

[Henry Gondorff]

This thread is giving me a headache. Let's get some things straight here. Apparently, I'm the only one who actually saw this movie in 1969. I not only saw it, I saw it every day and night for over two weeks. So, the film did NOT open in July, it opened on May 28 in two NY theaters. It went wide in mid-July, which is when I saw it. For a few weeks that summer, I worked at the Albermarle Theater in Brooklyn before I went off and did summer stock. So, for the two weeks it played there, I saw it at least twice daily. At the end of the first week it had been cut down to the short version.

As to this 178-minute version - that was only available in Italy and Paramount does not own those rights, so I'm not sure how or even why they'd include it. By the time it reached LA on July 23, it had already been shortened - it never played LA full length - in fact, interestingly, the running time listed in Kevin Thomas' LA Times review is 135 minutes. It played on a double bill with El Dorado. Now, if you want my opinion on things, after the exclusive run in NY it was decided to cut down the film. That work happened in June and early July. I believe that the cut prints weren't ready in time for the opening of the wide release - no second features anywhere in the wide release and start times that match the long version. I think they shipped the short prints as soon as they were ready and Paramount recalled the long version at the end of week one. That's my guess. So, the ONLY people who EVER saw the film uncut saw it in Manhattan or in a couple of theaters in its wide release (which wasn't all that wide back then). I remember watching the first show at the end of the first week and thinking, "What happened to all those scenes that suddenly aren't here?

I saw the first show of the opening day at the Savoy in Boston. It was the long version and some sections felt like a slog to me. I caught it about 4 weeks later when it spread to the nabes and it was noticeably lighter. I'm not a serious devotee and don't have knowledge of how judicious the cuts were, but I thought it played better.

 

[haineshisway]

I saw it at the Loew's Orpheum on opening day, then in July at the Albermarle, which was around the corner from where I was living at the time, on East 21st Street, but it was a little later in the run and had already been cut down.

BTW, I loved going to the last show on Saturday night at the Albermarle, for when you left the theater, there would be vendors outside with both the Sunday Times & News. I think the Times was 35 cents and the News was a quarter. Ah, those were the days.

I lived on E. 29th St. right near the Newkirk subway stop. We were neighbors! 356 E. 29th. I was probably there when you saw Once Upon a Time in the West. A few months prior, they played the horrible Can Heironymous Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness, the Anthony Newley fiasco, which I was kind of fascinated by. I think I also saw Daddy's Gone a Hunting there and I can't remember what else.

 

[Mike Frezon]

(BTW, the recent recording of the complete Oklahoma! score by John Wilson and the Sinfonia of London on Chandos (in 5.1 no less!) is spectacular!!!)

Is this available on disc?

 

[bugsy-pal]

I lived on E. 29th St. right near the Newkirk subway stop. We were neighbors! 356 E. 29th. I was probably there when you saw Once Upon a Time in the West. A few months prior, they played the horrible Can Heironymous Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness, the Anthony Newley fiasco, which I was kind of fascinated by. I think I also saw Daddy's Gone a Hunting there and I can't remember what else.

Still off topic and peripheral, but what is it with those shaggy dog titles? I was always fascinated by "Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feeling So Sad" with Rosalind Russell, Robert Morse and Jonathan Winters (if memory serves) after seeing it on TV as a youngster. I would love to see that again in some form or another!

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread is giving me a headache. Let's get some things straight here. Apparently, I'm the only one who actually saw this movie in 1969. I not only saw it, I saw it every day and night for over two weeks. So, the film did NOT open in July, it opened on May 28 in two NY theaters. It went wide in mid-July, which is when I saw it. For a few weeks that summer, I worked at the Albermarle Theater in Brooklyn before I went off and did summer stock. So, for the two weeks it played there, I saw it at least twice daily. At the end of the first week it had been cut down to the short version.

As to this 178-minute version - that was only available in Italy and Paramount does not own those rights, so I'm not sure how or even why they'd include it. By the time it reached LA on July 23, it had already been shortened - it never played LA full length - in fact, interestingly, the running time listed in Kevin Thomas' LA Times review is 135 minutes. It played on a double bill with El Dorado. Now, if you want my opinion on things, after the exclusive run in NY it was decided to cut down the film. That work happened in June and early July. I believe that the cut prints weren't ready in time for the opening of the wide release - no second features anywhere in the wide release and start times that match the long version. I think they shipped the short prints as soon as they were ready and Paramount recalled the long version at the end of week one. That's my guess. So, the ONLY people who EVER saw the film uncut saw it in Manhattan or in a couple of theaters in its wide release (which wasn't all that wide back then). I remember watching the first show at the end of the first week and thinking, "What happened to all those scenes that suddenly aren't here?

And more from The AFI Catalog attesting to the correctness of your comments:

”Once Upon a Time in the West opened in Italy in late Dec 1968. Within three weeks of release there, it grossed $1.35 million, according to a 28 Jan 1969 DV brief. In the U.S., the picture received an “M” rating (suggested for mature audiences) from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), as stated in a 21 May 1969 DV item. It opened in New York City on 28 May 1969, with a running time of 165 minutes. Perhaps due to some early criticism of its length – described as “heavy going” in the 26 May 1969 DVreview – it was edited down to 135 minutes by the time it debuted in Los Angeles, CA, on 23 Jul 1969.”

AFI also confirms that Paramount did/does not control Italian rights.

An opinion - this one mine - I‘d bet that there is a good chance that there weren’t more than a handful of 165 minute prints struck before new matrices, a track negative, and sample print were produced in Rome.

If anyone cares about this, there should be lab records.

 

[Grubert]

This thread is giving me a headache. Let's get some things straight here. Apparently, I'm the only one who actually saw this movie in 1969. I not only saw it, I saw it every day and night for over two weeks. So, the film did NOT open in July, it opened on May 28 in two NY theaters. It went wide in mid-July, which is when I saw it. For a few weeks that summer, I worked at the Albermarle Theater in Brooklyn before I went off and did summer stock. So, for the two weeks it played there, I saw it at least twice daily. At the end of the first week it had been cut down to the short version.

As to this 178-minute version - that was only available in Italy and Paramount does not own those rights, so I'm not sure how or even why they'd include it. By the time it reached LA on July 23, it had already been shortened - it never played LA full length - in fact, interestingly, the running time listed in Kevin Thomas' LA Times review is 135 minutes. It played on a double bill with El Dorado. Now, if you want my opinion on things, after the exclusive run in NY it was decided to cut down the film. That work happened in June and early July. I believe that the cut prints weren't ready in time for the opening of the wide release - no second features anywhere in the wide release and start times that match the long version. I think they shipped the short prints as soon as they were ready and Paramount recalled the long version at the end of week one. That's my guess. So, the ONLY people who EVER saw the film uncut saw it in Manhattan or in a couple of theaters in its wide release (which wasn't all that wide back then). I remember watching the first show at the end of the first week and thinking, "What happened to all those scenes that suddenly aren't here?

Did you check this article from one who also watched it countless times in 1969: