Press Release BVHE Press Release: Nightmare Alley (4k UHD Combo) (1 Viewer)

[Charles 22]

It's a shame the studios seem to be willing to sacrifice the low-income customers that cannot afford high-speed internet, the latest and greatest high-tech devices to play the content, or multiple subscriptions to streamers. Some don't have credit cards or even bank accounts. There are also still large swaths of the country that don't have access to broadband internet even if they can afford it. Access to broadband infrastructure and cell phone service has been an ongoing discussion in Vermont for years, and we're one of the smaller rural states. Many of these people still buy discs to watch movies.

I was in Walmart yesterday and there was a group of people all excited because the store had refilled the DVD "dump bin". They ran to the front of the store to get a cart so they could take some off the top of the bin and and begin to sort through them.

that sounds a bit like heaven to me, just as long as the studios keep making disc media.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I don't know if Ronald gets all of that out of why it's not worth re-watching, but as best I can, that's why I think I want nothing to do with it anymore.

This plays out as film noir and (with respect to Robert Crawford) I am not a huge fan of it.

There are some Film Noir movies I have seen over the years that I like

However, they tend to be very talky, and with a very downtrodden mood.

Yes, Charles, you hit the nail on the head as to why this only works once for me.

However, that being said, I thought the acting and particularly the Cinematography and style was first-rate. I expect that from Guillermo. I am also itching to see the original that this film is based on. Let me see if it's on digital as that would be the quickest way to catch this.

 

[Walter Kittel]

There's not a single redeeming character, not one. I realize that's the overall tent to the movie, but while it's fine to see it once, I don't really want to see such repulsive characters, in the same old way, doing the exact same things.

Film is very subjective and I can certainly understand that point of view. It isn't one I share, but that's okay. There is a certain karmic justice at play which mitigates to some degree the notion of irredeemable characters inhabiting the film.

- Walter.

 

[Charles 22]

This plays out as film noir and (with respect to Robert Crawford) I am not a huge fan of it.

There are some Film Noir movies I have seen over the years that I like

However, they tend to be very talky, and with a very downtrodden mood.

Yes, Charles, you hit the nail on the head as to why this only works once for me.

However, that being said, I thought the acting and particularly the Cinematography and style was first-rate. I expect that from Guillermo. I am also itching to see the original that this film is based on. Let me see if it's on digital as that would be the quickest way to catch this.

And what you just said really resonates with me too. I am a bit intrigued with noir, but a lot more in the tv series mode. I have the Mike Hammer 50's series, and I have the REALLY dreadful Peter Gunn which I've never seen before, other than just flipping channels. I have a great interest in Pamela Britton, and you may recall she was in that classic noir movie DOA, and while it's a good movie, sadly Pamela didn't have that much to do with it.

In pursuing Pamela, I bumped into a Peter Gunn episode she was in, which she actually had a lot more to do than she did with DOA, and she shows quite a lot of range there. That episode is a great one, and it was called Than A Serpent's Tooth.

Recently, I bought the entire Peter Gunn show on dvd. I'm only about 12 episodes deep so far, and it's VERY interesting, but unlike the dragon episode, most of it isn't shocking for a twist to what you think is going on, but the minority of the time, just rather shocking. But there's a beauty to it too, nowhere else, and I mean this, will you ever see such a relaxed bunch of actors. It's like they have all day to do their lines (like they're in a movie), and that aspect alone is actually beautiful, it's like a new tv art form to me. I definitely didn't notice that with Mike Hammer, though he's more of an action guy. I don't like the world of Peter Gunn that much, but it's such a trip into another world, it's like an endless visual pleasure.

I haven't seen that much movie noir, but this show, just on atmosphere alone, seems like noir to the nth degree to me, and it's just so different, even if the stories on their own might not intrigue me that much, I'm just glued to the pace, and that everything is always taking place at night, etc. It's like watching a lava flow slowly going down a volcano, and you just can't take your eyes off it. I haven't the faintest notion how they could get normal human beings to behave like that. It's like they're half-dead all the time they're so slow and I suppose that had to be deliberate. I'll keep the series I think, just to step into another world every once in a while. That jazz music too, just adds to the atmosphere. Thirteen episodes thus far, and Serpent's Tooth (it ran in the middle of the last season) is still the best.

I may be valuing the series more than it will turn out to be worth, but since you have the series on dvd, it takes on a lot more importance, as most on discs do for me. But in the case of Peter Gunn, the noir is so thick you can slice it, yet at least it's replayable, because there are some somewhat delightful characters on it. I know I'll probably play Than a Serpent's Tooth at least three more times in life. BTW, even without discs, say in the old days, I have always valued tv much more than movies for various reasons, so while movie noir interests me almost not at all, tv does to an extent, but never until I could have it on discs. Tv primarily interests me, because it's always that second chance. If one episode, or a series of episodes don't work, there's always the hope you'll run into another Serpent's Tooth down the line. You go to the movies, it's one and done almost always, especially with noir.

 

[Charles 22]

Film is very subjective and I can certainly understand that point of view. It isn't one I share, but that's okay. There is a certain karmic justice at play which mitigates to some degree the notion of irredeemable characters inhabiting the film.

- Walter.

Oh, I certainly understood the karma aspect (not that such a thing really exists. I think poetic justice would be a better description I would use), but I just don't want repulsive characters around me. I don't know where it started, maybe fairly recently, and I don't know why, and this has nothing to do with noir, but for some reason there are times when I just want the scum to get it in film, and get it good. I think I'm involuntarily wanting in film, sort of what I don't want in real life. IOW, in real life, I want them to repent of their evils, rather than just go to Hell. Of course, in film usually, we don't care if they go to hell or not for their evils, we just want them messed up or dead, because it's all fiction anyway, and film isn't in the habit of showing somebody going hell-bound for evil, or heaven-bound for good.

 

[Indy Guy]

I have watched a screener copy multiple times in color and also black and white. It is easy to turn off the color and adjust the contrast to achieve a respectible black and white picture. Having studied both, I prefer the film in color with an amazingly nuanced color scheme.
I don't see the lead character as slime. There are a couple side characters that meet that generalization, but the main character comes from a horrific background somewhat like Eleanore in The Haunting. The film shows a gradual decent and loss of humanity as he crosses the line from a promising sideshow performer to preying upon people caught in turmoil.
The other cast members, mostly work within the bounds of carnival enterprises of the time. I remember going to these things in the 60's when they would travel the Southern California fair circuit. People loved being amazed and fooled, that's why magic is so popular. Charlatans is what these people really are.
When tricks and foolery cross the line into exploitation (warned about throughout the film) is where things become dangerous, but not slimy. That being said, Cate Blanchett IS deliciously slimy in her tour de force performance!

 

[Charles 22]

I have watched a screener copy multiple times in color and also black and white. It is easy to turn off the color and adjust the contrast to achieve a respectible black and white picture. Having studied both, I prefer the film in color with an amazingly nuanced color scheme.
I don't see the lead character as slime. There are a couple side characters that meet that generalization, but the main character comes from a horrific background somewhat like Eleanore in The Haunting. The film shows a gradual decent and loss of humanity as he crosses the line from a promising sideshow performer to preying upon people caught in turmoil.
The other cast members, mostly work within the bounds of carnival enterprises of the time. I remember going to these things in the 60's when they would travel the Southern California fair circuit. People loved being amazed and fooled, that's why magic is so popular. Charlatans is what these people really are.
When tricks and foolery cross the line into exploitation (warned about throughout the film) is where things become dangerous, but not slimy. That being said, Cate Blanchett IS deliciously slimy in her tour de force performance!

Ahem, murdering his father???? Sounds like slime to me (but you don't find that out till much later). He only went carny, one would suppose, because he was trying to be incognito (hiding from the law) and still work. The scumbag wasn't even loyal to his wife, and he caused a suicide/murder by LYING to Mary Steenburgen about their son contacting him. Oh, and must I forget? Poisoning his mentor, etc? I can't recall all his other slime, it just got a bit much after a while. It sure don'/t sound like somebody I would want to be around. Just the fact that he was such a slimeball, even after his destitution towards the end, he wanted to try deceiving his future employer, certainly alone would be a reason I wouldn't want him around me. I think you're mixing up him being the protagonist, with him being a good guy - he wasn't, though at times he appeared to be, and you thought he might be redeemable. of course, had the movie showed the murder of his father in the beginning, I think you might had thought completely differently

 

[Robert Crawford]

You guys are giving away too many spoilers for this 2021 movie.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Last weekend, my GF told me it was on Hulu and HBO. I was shocked. I couldn't believe Disney released this to streaming services prior to the disc release.

Disney has been doing this for a while now with much higher-grossing titles than Nightmare Alley. Shang-Chi, Eternals, and Encanto were all released on Disney+ prior to their physical media release dates. Shang-Chi was on Disney+ on November 12 with a physical release on November 30. Eternals streamed on Disney+ on January 12 and came out on physical media yesterday. Encanto streamed on Disney+ on December 24 and came to disc February 8.

Also, the new West Side Story is going to be on Disney+ and HBO Max on March 2, and it hasn't been officially announced for physical media yet.

As others have said, the point of this is to drive people to the subscription services. Disney will take any physical media sales that they can get, but they'd rather use these films to lure customers to subscribe or stay subscribed. A physical disc purchase is a one-time payment to Disney and they're done. A streaming subscription guarantees them money month after month, as long as you don't cancel. So I understand why that is their priority.

In the case of the Fox titles such as Nightmare Alley and West Side Story, they were contractually obligated to go to HBO Max because of a pre-existing arrangement for Fox films to play on HBO made before Disney acquired the company. There was a deal reported in one of the trades a few months bak that HBO agreed to share certain titles with Disney+ and Hulu in exchange for getting them released faster. I don't know the exact terms of the deal, but I'm guessing it was something like "Hulu can have Nightmare Alley too if we can put it up sooner."

Disney contractually committed to a 45-day theatrical window for Nightmare Alley and so it went up on HBO Max and Hulu on day 46. They have extended the theatrical window for some bigger movies. (Shang-Chi had 71 days.) But considering how low Nightmare Alley has been at the box office, I'm not surprised they moved to get it out on streaming as soon as possible.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thanks for that detailed information, Jake.

 

[bujaki]

Rooney Mara is not his wife. The character is his wife in the '47 version to appease the Code.
I've watched the '47 version at least 3 times. The first time was MoMA's 35mm print. I recently watched the Criterion BD, based on the restoration spearheaded by Schawn Belston. It's worth acquiring.
I will also buy Del Toro's version.
I know how the story ends since I first saw it at MoMA. Zanuck softened the ending, though. Still, I don't care. I can watch it often for its journey into degradation and its fine acting. I understand why others would shy away from the journey, though.

 

[Charles 22]

You guys are giving away too many spoilers for this 2021 movie.

Somebody had to correct that gross misconception - sorry.

 

[Charles 22]

Disney has been doing this for a while now with much higher-grossing titles than Nightmare Alley. Shang-Chi, Eternals, and Encanto were all released on Disney+ prior to their physical media release dates. Shang-Chi was on Disney+ on November 12 with a physical release on November 30. Eternals streamed on Disney+ on January 12 and came out on physical media yesterday. Encanto streamed on Disney+ on December 24 and came to disc February 8.

Also, the new West Side Story is going to be on Disney+ and HBO Max on March 2, and it hasn't been officially announced for physical media yet.

As others have said, the point of this is to drive people to the subscription services. Disney will take any physical media sales that they can get, but they'd rather use these films to lure customers to subscribe or stay subscribed. A physical disc purchase is a one-time payment to Disney and they're done. A streaming subscription guarantees them money month after month, as long as you don't cancel. So I understand why that is their priority.

In the case of the Fox titles such as Nightmare Alley and West Side Story, they were contractually obligated to go to HBO Max because of a pre-existing arrangement for Fox films to play on HBO made before Disney acquired the company. There was a deal reported in one of the trades a few months bak that HBO agreed to share certain titles with Disney+ and Hulu in exchange for getting them released faster. I don't know the exact terms of the deal, but I'm guessing it was something like "Hulu can have Nightmare Alley too if we can put it up sooner."

Disney contractually committed to a 45-day theatrical window for Nightmare Alley and so it went up on HBO Max and Hulu on day 46. They have extended the theatrical window for some bigger movies. (Shang-Chi had 71 days.) But considering how low Nightmare Alley has been at the box office, I'm not surprised they moved to get it out on streaming as soon as possible.

It don't shift me in the least and never will. I don't keep up with their stupid subscription timelines, as I don't know anybody in the twelve-year-old category that I might engage in a struggle of vanity with. "Say bro, you haven't seen that movie yet? What's with ya bro?"

 

[Indy Guy]

Somebody had to correct that gross misconception - sorry.

It is all a matter of perception. I feel 1963's "The Haunting" created great sympathy for Eleanor's mental condition because of what she endured with her aged mother. The lead character in Nightmare has come to a similar hopeless situation with the added burden of being destitute.

It's insulting to say my view is a "gross misconception" instead of just different than yours. The film is nominated for the best picture of the year for reasons that you do not see. I sympathize with the leads struggle to find himself while (like Hauntings Eleanor) getting further consumed by a series of choices.

 

[Charles 22]

It is all a matter of perception. I feel 1963's "The Haunting" created great sympathy for Eleanor's mental condition because of what she endured with her aged mother. The lead character in Nightmare has come to a similar hopeless situation with the added burden of being destitute.

It's insulting to say my view is a "gross misconception" instead of just different than yours. The film is nominated for the best picture of the year for reasons that you do not see. I sympathize with the leads struggle to find himself while (like Hauntings Eleanor) getting further consumed by a series of choices.

I was talking objectively about whether he was a good guy, such that if he wasn't, I wouldn't want him living around me. When I said "gross misconception" I meant it. There's nothing to misunderstand about the awful things he did. If "you" want to call your view "just different" from mine, you're entirely free to delude yourself further. Fact of the matter, if somebody comes and "burns my house down" or other similar acts, I don't care what background the idiot comes from, he's a menace to society and not only shouldn't be in my neighborhood, or anybody else's for that matter, but in a cozy prison cell.

I haven't a clue about that other movie you mention.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I was talking objectively about whether he was a good guy, such that if he wasn't, I wouldn't want him living around me. When I said "gross misconception" I meant it. There's nothing to misunderstand about the awful things he did. If "you" want to call your view "just different" from mine, you're entirely free to delude yourself further. Fact of the matter, if somebody comes and "burns my house down" or other similar acts, I don't care what background the idiot comes from, he's a menace to society and not only shouldn't be in my neighborhood, or anybody else's for that matter, but in a cozy prison cell.

I haven't a clue about that other movie you mention.

I find such comments condescending and disrespectful to those that don't share your POV. Please dial it back. Thank you.

 

[Charles 22]

I find such comments condescending and disrespectful to those that don't share your POV. Please dial it back. Thank you.

I'll just let him have the floor instead, since he's so right and all.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'll just let him have the floor instead, since he's so right and all.

People interpret movies and characters differently, it doesn't mean one's right and somebody else is wrong. We encourage civil discourse between posters which is why our posting guidelines are so strict.

 

[Charles 22]

People interpret movies and characters differently, it doesn't mean one's right and somebody else is wrong. We encourage civil discourse between posters which is why our posting guidelines are so strict.

I see your point believe me, and thank you for attempting to do so. I even could possibly make a bridge between him and I concerning directly what he was talking about, but he just didn't like the degree of the separation in "opinion" we had, and wanted to even dull that. There is a point where opinions differ, and we can call it merely differing opinions, such as he likes vanilla and I like chocolate, but somebody not seeing what that character did as a matter of him almost being a good guy, and the angle I was driving at, the gulf between us is enormous, and that's why I did not, and cannot consider that rift as to not need a much more substantial descriptive term, hence gross misconception from him. I did attempt to bridge our gap ever so slightly, by stating that I realize it's somewhat easy to walk away thinking the protagonist was a good guy, just because he was the protagonist, but that's the only avenue I could see really.

I realize the movie isn't real life, but I also realize there's a great deal of mitigating people's outright criminal activity these days, down to them having just "a bad childhood" or what not, and frankly I won't stand for it, and it's a large part of why this society is such a sewer as it is - sorry. I understand in a godless world, that is if we take the world of this movie as being that, mitigating may be all you have to keep yourself from going insane against such vile people, but then again, that's part of the world of noir, that there's just lots of vile people in it, and it's a primary reason why I personally find that world quite a bit repulsive. It is, after all, where the discussion had shifted to, that is, Ronald and I could not see ourselves seeing this movie again because it had so many repulsive characters in it (although if you closed your eyes a bit, the protagonist could 'seem' better), and that was the entire reason I brought up Peter Gunn, first to introduce something that was quite different in its noir approach, but secondly to show it wasn't like this movie in that it gave you some characters (an actual hero type protagonist for a start) which weren't repulsive and didn't need excusing their behavior with mitigating factors.

Are you this site's only moderator? I was in some distress elsewhere and I looked all over the site, and not only couldn't find a moderator, but an administrator either. It turned out, we seemingly have worked things out, so no more need in that area, but I'm just characteristically curious. Lay it on me brotha

 

[Mike Frezon]

Are you this site's only moderator?

There are several others of us.

In the widgets in the right-hand column, one is called "STAFF ONLINE." If you click on those words, you will see a complete list of administrators and owners.

As Robert suggests, if you haven't taken the time yet to read our Terms/Rules, I advise you do so. We are quite strict about maintaining civil discourse on this site (something many others sites do NOT do). That link is available at the very bottom of every HTF page.

Everyone is allowed to have their opinion and to express it freely, as long as it's not done at the expense of another member. That is very important to us. For example, implying another member is delusional is not acceptable here.