Regarding the success of “The Robe” and “How to Marry a Millionaire” relative to “Kiss Me Kate” you also have to remember that the former were the first films in the brand new CinemaScope process when that widescreen format’s name had big marquee value, just as 3-D had at the beginning of the brief 3-D era. The novelty of 3-D had pretty much worn off, people were in fact tired of wearing those 3-D glasses, the darkened image caused by them and the sometimes imperfect projection. The mediocrity of many (but definitely not all) of the films of course had something to do with it. Meanwhile they were anxious to see the mostly extravagant and star packed CinemaScope films on their local theater’s new wide screens, hopefully accompanied by four channel stereophonic sound. CinemaScope of course was here to stay and 3-D was on it’s last legs.
Growing up in RIchmond CA I could tell that the 3-D era’s end was near. We had two downtown theaters equipped for 3-D, the UA and the Fox. I dismayed to see that films that played San Francisco and Oakland in 3-D like “Kiss Me Kate” were arriving in Richmond a month or so later in flat 3-D versions. We fortunately did get “Hondo” in 3-D and then (surprisingly) “Revenge of the Creature” and that was the end of 3-D for us. Our local suburban theater, the Park in El Sobrante, had previously announced that 3-D was “coming soon” but soon saw the handwriting on the wall and cancelled plans to install it. At theaters all over town you would see posters for films originally shot in 3-D with pasted strips over the 3-D logos and obviously being played flat in those theaters. As a teenage boy who enjoyed the novelty of 3-D I was completely bummed out but looking back I can see the reasons for the format’s quick demise in both the 1950’s and 1980’s.
I’m not optimistic that 3-D will really catch on in a big way this time either. Unless they can finally find a way to perfect it without having the audience wearing glasses I think it will just remain the novelty it has always been…not that there is anything wrong with novelties! If there is ever a 3-D Expo III in Hollywood, I’m on my way!
Jack, the Variety article did NOT refer to any technical problems outside of Radio City but my main point here is that audiences were avoiding 3-D and these films were not big hits.
HONDO, which buried the fact that it was in 3-D in ads, is was mostly seen in 1954, only showed $4.1 in receipts and came in at number 16 that year. THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY had done $5.2 that year in 2-D.
DIAL M FOR MURDER, (Hitchcock was ‘compelled’ by Warners to film it in 3-D) was not even advertised as being in that format in any New York run to avoid the stigma. It made $2.7 compared to $5.3 for REAR WINDOW that same year.
MONEY FROM HOME made $3.5, the same as THE CADDY in 2-D but less that LIVING IT UP $4.2 in 2-D that same year.
1953
The Robe $20-30
From Here to Eternity $12.5
Shane $8.0
How to Marry a Millionaire $7.5
Peter Pan $7.0
Hans Christian Anderson $6.0
House of Wax (3-D) $5.5
Mogambo $5.2
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes $5.1
Moulin Rouge $5.0
Salome $4.7
The Charge at Feather River (3-D) $3.6
1954
White Christmas $12.0
The Caine Mutiny $8.7
The Glenn Miller Story $7.0
The Egyptian $6.0
Rear Window $5.3
The High and the Mighty $5.2
Magnificent Obsession $5.0
Three Coins in the Fountain $5.0
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers $4.7
Desiree $4.5
My point is that the whole history of the 3-D in the 50’s lived and died in one year and was killed by audience rejection. Whether it was head-ache inducing sync or bad films remains a matter of opinion. I was a theatre manager during the COMIN’ AT YA! era and gave out many refunds to unhappy patrons. You might argue we have come a long way but the last HARRY POTTER gave me a headache after only ten minutes of IMAX 3-D.
I enjoyed “Dial M for Murder” in 35 mm (not 3D)when Warner Brothers showed it as one of the four 1950s films they showed as part of their 75th Anniv festival. It was a popular film at the time. Philadelphians can have extra pride in that Grace Kelly stars.
I know mature adults who enjoyed seeing “Polar Express” in 3D at the King of Prussia Imax. Both 3D and Imax are indeed gimmicks to attract people into the theaters, including young people who are too used to tiny screens they carry around. If the studios produce good 3D movies, they will do well. Let’s wish them luck!
Al, you’re taking a lot of things out of context. That first KATE/Hall article was referring to the out-of-sync presentations that plagued the films previously.
Both THE ROBE and MILLIONAIRE did better because of their saturation campaigns. KISS KE KATE wasn’t being pushed as hard because everyone knew the musical. And if it was such a flop in 3D, why were there more orders for left/right pairs than Technicolor could make in a short time? The same thing happened with MONEY FROM HOME, which was a box-office hit, as were many of the Martin and Lewis films.
True, THE ROBE outgrossed HOUSE OF WAX, but that wasn’t point. The fact that it actually did quite well at the box office (top ten that year), shows otherwise. You ignored my comment about HONDO, which was enough of a success that Warner re-instated his trust in 3D.
But what it boils down to is this— even then, most of these films got OK to good reviews, and most critics today agree that they’re pretty good pictures, even in 2D. I can’t argue what you like or dislike, but to dismiss fifty totally unrelated films on the basis that they’re in 3D (again, a form that you admit you haven’t seen them in), is glib.
All this 3D banter did induce a trip to the local cinema yesterday to see “Bolt” in “Disney Digital 3D”. I had seen it in 2D and enjoyed it. Here’s the skinny:
I shared the theatre with six other people, mostly young kids. Right from the start I was irritated by the polarized glasses. Ever wear sunglasses in a theatre? The dark glasses washed the brilliant color out of the image and seemed to highlight the poor digital resolution at times.
The depth of image was impressive at first, but after fifteen minutes of fidgeting with my sunglasses I had had enough and left the kiddies to enjoy what I consider to be the cinematic equivalent of my childhood Viewmaster.
I’m not old enough to have experienced the 3D of the 50’s but if it was anything like this, I can see why it died a quick death. I don’t believe that this technology will be well received by anybody over the age of thirty and since you can’t watch the movie without the “sunglasses” I can imagine a lot of parents wandering aimlessly through theatre lobbies everywhere.
I really think that if IMAX had stuck with the WINGS OF COURAGE headset and concept they would have been a real force in the industry today. Instead they chose to go IMAX light when WINGS OF COURAGE failed to ignite the box office.
By the way, the Variety article that reports that only small town children were responding well to 3-D may be the reason FLY ME TO THE MOON is in 3-D but FROST/NIXON is not.
Actually, Wings Of Courage has made back its $15 million budget though it took many years to do so. I’d cut it some slack considering that the film didn’t even hit 30 theatres at its widest.
My mistake in saying that KATE opened citywide on the New York Loew’s circuit in December. I was not in my office and was relying on memory.
However, KATE in 3-D was MGM’s big Christmas release in major cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, etc. As I said earlier, exhibitor demand for 3-D prints was so great, Technicolor had to strike additional prints to fulfill the bookings of the 3-D version.
All studios push for Oscars every year. Loews decided the give the bigger hit FROM HERE TO ETERNITY that key Christmas playdate.
As you may know, Variety articles did not always carry writer’s credentials back then but here are a couple I have at hand that express the disdain already taking place, not only by audiences, but also exhibitors, in 1953-54:
November 6, 1953 MUSIC HALL FEARS KATE IN 3D
“Shady reputation of 3-D in the public’s mind is giving Radio City Music Hall, NY, a first-rate headache in trying to decide whether or not to present Metro’s “KISS ME KATE†in 3-D or flat.’
It goes on to explain the technical issues that add to the problem including the loss of about 300 seats.
“But if technical difficulties exist, the real stigma on 3-D is its past performanceâ€
October 13, 1954 BECAUSE KIDS LIKE ‘EM 3-D LINGERS IN THE STICKS
This article refers to the fact that films made in 3-D are only playing to kids in small towns with larger towns opting out and showing them in 2-D.
Even if HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE was not a musical, of the top rental receipts of 1953 KISS ME KATE came in at an unimpressive number 31. At 2.5 million it was beaten by the musicals PETER PAN, HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON, GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES, MOULIN ROUGE, ROAD TO BALI, CALL ME MADAM, APRIL IN PARIS, THE BAND WAGON, and EASY TO LOVE.
To compare, HOUSE OF WAX, the biggest 3-D hit of the era made 5.5 million in receipts. THE ROBE alone made somewhere between 20-30 million that year. Cinemascope was the real revelation.
I do not have a grudge against 3D. WINGS OF COURAGE in 3D was an amazing flop. I do take issue with revisionist history and anyone trying to pass off a fiasco like 1950’s 3-D as some kind of success, when it was in reality a seriously failed experiment. A little research will confirm that.
Yeah, the FROM HERE TO ETERNITY playdate couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that Columbia was pushing for an Oscar that year.
Al, judging from your posts, you seem to have a personal grudge against 3D films from that era, even though you haven’t seen most of the films in their stereoscopic format (can you see 3D?). Given the wide range of films that were made during that time, I find it hard to believe one could call the entire output “cheese.” You overlooked the fact that HOUSE OF WAX was one of the top grossers of the year.
Call January a dead month if you will, but the point is that most of the theaters were not only still playing 3D, they were advertising it, too. HONDO had a nice five-week run at the Paramount in 3-D, followed up by a 3-D booking on the RKO chain (31 theaters).
Do you have a source for the Variety article that states that bad movies were to blame for 3D’s diminish?
KISS ME KATE opened wide in 3D on the NY Loews circuit in the deadly mid-January slot. It is not true that it had the Christmas slot as that was given to the far more successful FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.
KATE was pulled from Radio city after four weeks and replaced by EASY TO LOVE in time for Christmas. It was showing only in Brooklyn with a second feature by Christmas.
For the sake of comparison, the musical HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE ran for 15 weeks during the same period and did about three times the business. Regardless of whether you like the film, it was not considered a box office success by anyone and is considered one of the nails in the coffin of 3D.
Mr. Furmanek is correct about KISS ME KATE. It played many theaters in 3-D during its initial run, and helped rejuvenate 3-D during the winter season of 1954, which included some of the titles I mentioned.
Whether you like the pictures or not, they were commercial successes— in 3-D— in their day.
That was in Percepto, a format in which the ghosts appeared in through a lens handed to the audience patron. If you didn’t want to see the ghost anymore, you could watch the movie without the lens.
13 GHOSTS wasn’t in 3-D. It utilized a “Ghost Viewer” with red and blue filters. Look through one filter and the ghosts disappear, and visa versa.
KISS ME KATE played every major engagement in 3-D, including neighborhood theaters. In fact, there was such a demand for 3-D bookings, Technicolor had to strike additional left/right prints!
Amen to what Bob said about anyone describing “Kiss Me Kate” as unbearable! Most movie fans (myself included) consider it one of the better 1950’s musicals and one of the better 3-D films. Too bad it came along right at the end at didn’t get more playdates in 3-D. Leonard Maltin gives it 3 ½ stars in his very reliable movie guide. He gives 3 stars to the other films mentioned with the exception of 2 ½ stars for “Cease Fire” which I didn’t much care for either although I never saw it in 3-D.
“House of Wax” and “Black Lagoon” “so bad they are funny”? Not in my opinion, then or now! Like you say Mr. Alvarez it is definitely subjective though…“different strokes for different folks”…and all that good stuff!
Speaking of “stroking” (sorry about that!) the 1969/71 adult softcore epic “The Stewardesses” has just been released on DVD in anaglyphic 3-D if any of you dirty old men or dirty young men (or women?) want a blast from the past. You can get it from Amazon and other web dealers. It’s pretty tame by today’s standards and pretty bad by the standards of any era, amazing that it played for months during it’s initial release. I remember when the good citizens of Berkeley were picketing the little Elmwood theatre because they were holding it over too long and keeping out the artsy foreign and independent films which were the normal fare of the Elmwood.
You’re right Al, it is extremely subjective and I dis-agree with you. The 50 3-D movies of that period are on a par with all other studio product of the time.
KISS ME KATE opened flat at the Music Hall for technical reasons. They were concerned with the loss of seating on the extreme sides of the orchestra. However, it did open city-wide in 3-D on the Loew’s circuit just in time for Christmas.
You’re the first person I’ve ever heard describe KATE as “unbearable!”
Unfortunately, if you adjust for inflation on that same site you will find HOUSE OF WAX is still as good as it gets.
View link
TOP 2O 3D NUMBERS
View link
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/HMMCB.php
SOME BIG GROSSING 3D
If Cinemascope and Cinerama had novelty blockbusters to lead with why didn’t the 3-D ever produce one?
If you add all the receipts for every 3-D film from BWANA DEVIL to HONDO you still get less than $30 million.
Regarding the success of “The Robe” and “How to Marry a Millionaire” relative to “Kiss Me Kate” you also have to remember that the former were the first films in the brand new CinemaScope process when that widescreen format’s name had big marquee value, just as 3-D had at the beginning of the brief 3-D era. The novelty of 3-D had pretty much worn off, people were in fact tired of wearing those 3-D glasses, the darkened image caused by them and the sometimes imperfect projection. The mediocrity of many (but definitely not all) of the films of course had something to do with it. Meanwhile they were anxious to see the mostly extravagant and star packed CinemaScope films on their local theater’s new wide screens, hopefully accompanied by four channel stereophonic sound. CinemaScope of course was here to stay and 3-D was on it’s last legs.
Growing up in RIchmond CA I could tell that the 3-D era’s end was near. We had two downtown theaters equipped for 3-D, the UA and the Fox. I dismayed to see that films that played San Francisco and Oakland in 3-D like “Kiss Me Kate” were arriving in Richmond a month or so later in flat 3-D versions. We fortunately did get “Hondo” in 3-D and then (surprisingly) “Revenge of the Creature” and that was the end of 3-D for us. Our local suburban theater, the Park in El Sobrante, had previously announced that 3-D was “coming soon” but soon saw the handwriting on the wall and cancelled plans to install it. At theaters all over town you would see posters for films originally shot in 3-D with pasted strips over the 3-D logos and obviously being played flat in those theaters. As a teenage boy who enjoyed the novelty of 3-D I was completely bummed out but looking back I can see the reasons for the format’s quick demise in both the 1950’s and 1980’s.
I’m not optimistic that 3-D will really catch on in a big way this time either. Unless they can finally find a way to perfect it without having the audience wearing glasses I think it will just remain the novelty it has always been…not that there is anything wrong with novelties! If there is ever a 3-D Expo III in Hollywood, I’m on my way!
Jack, the Variety article did NOT refer to any technical problems outside of Radio City but my main point here is that audiences were avoiding 3-D and these films were not big hits.
HONDO, which buried the fact that it was in 3-D in ads, is was mostly seen in 1954, only showed $4.1 in receipts and came in at number 16 that year. THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY had done $5.2 that year in 2-D.
DIAL M FOR MURDER, (Hitchcock was ‘compelled’ by Warners to film it in 3-D) was not even advertised as being in that format in any New York run to avoid the stigma. It made $2.7 compared to $5.3 for REAR WINDOW that same year.
MONEY FROM HOME made $3.5, the same as THE CADDY in 2-D but less that LIVING IT UP $4.2 in 2-D that same year.
1953
The Robe $20-30
From Here to Eternity $12.5
Shane $8.0
How to Marry a Millionaire $7.5
Peter Pan $7.0
Hans Christian Anderson $6.0
House of Wax (3-D) $5.5
Mogambo $5.2
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes $5.1
Moulin Rouge $5.0
Salome $4.7
The Charge at Feather River (3-D) $3.6
1954
White Christmas $12.0
The Caine Mutiny $8.7
The Glenn Miller Story $7.0
The Egyptian $6.0
Rear Window $5.3
The High and the Mighty $5.2
Magnificent Obsession $5.0
Three Coins in the Fountain $5.0
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers $4.7
Desiree $4.5
My point is that the whole history of the 3-D in the 50’s lived and died in one year and was killed by audience rejection. Whether it was head-ache inducing sync or bad films remains a matter of opinion. I was a theatre manager during the COMIN’ AT YA! era and gave out many refunds to unhappy patrons. You might argue we have come a long way but the last HARRY POTTER gave me a headache after only ten minutes of IMAX 3-D.
Ah, clarification: my meaning was that “Dial M for Murder” was popular when first released.
I enjoyed “Dial M for Murder” in 35 mm (not 3D)when Warner Brothers showed it as one of the four 1950s films they showed as part of their 75th Anniv festival. It was a popular film at the time. Philadelphians can have extra pride in that Grace Kelly stars.
I know mature adults who enjoyed seeing “Polar Express” in 3D at the King of Prussia Imax. Both 3D and Imax are indeed gimmicks to attract people into the theaters, including young people who are too used to tiny screens they carry around. If the studios produce good 3D movies, they will do well. Let’s wish them luck!
Al, you’re taking a lot of things out of context. That first KATE/Hall article was referring to the out-of-sync presentations that plagued the films previously.
Both THE ROBE and MILLIONAIRE did better because of their saturation campaigns. KISS KE KATE wasn’t being pushed as hard because everyone knew the musical. And if it was such a flop in 3D, why were there more orders for left/right pairs than Technicolor could make in a short time? The same thing happened with MONEY FROM HOME, which was a box-office hit, as were many of the Martin and Lewis films.
True, THE ROBE outgrossed HOUSE OF WAX, but that wasn’t point. The fact that it actually did quite well at the box office (top ten that year), shows otherwise. You ignored my comment about HONDO, which was enough of a success that Warner re-instated his trust in 3D.
But what it boils down to is this— even then, most of these films got OK to good reviews, and most critics today agree that they’re pretty good pictures, even in 2D. I can’t argue what you like or dislike, but to dismiss fifty totally unrelated films on the basis that they’re in 3D (again, a form that you admit you haven’t seen them in), is glib.
All this 3D banter did induce a trip to the local cinema yesterday to see “Bolt” in “Disney Digital 3D”. I had seen it in 2D and enjoyed it. Here’s the skinny:
I shared the theatre with six other people, mostly young kids. Right from the start I was irritated by the polarized glasses. Ever wear sunglasses in a theatre? The dark glasses washed the brilliant color out of the image and seemed to highlight the poor digital resolution at times.
The depth of image was impressive at first, but after fifteen minutes of fidgeting with my sunglasses I had had enough and left the kiddies to enjoy what I consider to be the cinematic equivalent of my childhood Viewmaster.
I’m not old enough to have experienced the 3D of the 50’s but if it was anything like this, I can see why it died a quick death. I don’t believe that this technology will be well received by anybody over the age of thirty and since you can’t watch the movie without the “sunglasses” I can imagine a lot of parents wandering aimlessly through theatre lobbies everywhere.
I really think that if IMAX had stuck with the WINGS OF COURAGE headset and concept they would have been a real force in the industry today. Instead they chose to go IMAX light when WINGS OF COURAGE failed to ignite the box office.
By the way, the Variety article that reports that only small town children were responding well to 3-D may be the reason FLY ME TO THE MOON is in 3-D but FROST/NIXON is not.
Actually, Wings Of Courage has made back its $15 million budget though it took many years to do so. I’d cut it some slack considering that the film didn’t even hit 30 theatres at its widest.
My mistake in saying that KATE opened citywide on the New York Loew’s circuit in December. I was not in my office and was relying on memory.
However, KATE in 3-D was MGM’s big Christmas release in major cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, etc. As I said earlier, exhibitor demand for 3-D prints was so great, Technicolor had to strike additional prints to fulfill the bookings of the 3-D version.
A
All studios push for Oscars every year. Loews decided the give the bigger hit FROM HERE TO ETERNITY that key Christmas playdate.
As you may know, Variety articles did not always carry writer’s credentials back then but here are a couple I have at hand that express the disdain already taking place, not only by audiences, but also exhibitors, in 1953-54:
November 6, 1953 MUSIC HALL FEARS KATE IN 3D
“Shady reputation of 3-D in the public’s mind is giving Radio City Music Hall, NY, a first-rate headache in trying to decide whether or not to present Metro’s “KISS ME KATE†in 3-D or flat.’
It goes on to explain the technical issues that add to the problem including the loss of about 300 seats.
“But if technical difficulties exist, the real stigma on 3-D is its past performanceâ€
October 13, 1954 BECAUSE KIDS LIKE ‘EM 3-D LINGERS IN THE STICKS
This article refers to the fact that films made in 3-D are only playing to kids in small towns with larger towns opting out and showing them in 2-D.
Even if HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE was not a musical, of the top rental receipts of 1953 KISS ME KATE came in at an unimpressive number 31. At 2.5 million it was beaten by the musicals PETER PAN, HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON, GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES, MOULIN ROUGE, ROAD TO BALI, CALL ME MADAM, APRIL IN PARIS, THE BAND WAGON, and EASY TO LOVE.
To compare, HOUSE OF WAX, the biggest 3-D hit of the era made 5.5 million in receipts. THE ROBE alone made somewhere between 20-30 million that year. Cinemascope was the real revelation.
I do not have a grudge against 3D. WINGS OF COURAGE in 3D was an amazing flop. I do take issue with revisionist history and anyone trying to pass off a fiasco like 1950’s 3-D as some kind of success, when it was in reality a seriously failed experiment. A little research will confirm that.
Also, I don’t know how you could consider HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE a musical by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, the FROM HERE TO ETERNITY playdate couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that Columbia was pushing for an Oscar that year.
Al, judging from your posts, you seem to have a personal grudge against 3D films from that era, even though you haven’t seen most of the films in their stereoscopic format (can you see 3D?). Given the wide range of films that were made during that time, I find it hard to believe one could call the entire output “cheese.” You overlooked the fact that HOUSE OF WAX was one of the top grossers of the year.
Call January a dead month if you will, but the point is that most of the theaters were not only still playing 3D, they were advertising it, too. HONDO had a nice five-week run at the Paramount in 3-D, followed up by a 3-D booking on the RKO chain (31 theaters).
Do you have a source for the Variety article that states that bad movies were to blame for 3D’s diminish?
KISS ME KATE opened wide in 3D on the NY Loews circuit in the deadly mid-January slot. It is not true that it had the Christmas slot as that was given to the far more successful FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.
KATE was pulled from Radio city after four weeks and replaced by EASY TO LOVE in time for Christmas. It was showing only in Brooklyn with a second feature by Christmas.
For the sake of comparison, the musical HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE ran for 15 weeks during the same period and did about three times the business. Regardless of whether you like the film, it was not considered a box office success by anyone and is considered one of the nails in the coffin of 3D.
Mr. Furmanek is correct about KISS ME KATE. It played many theaters in 3-D during its initial run, and helped rejuvenate 3-D during the winter season of 1954, which included some of the titles I mentioned.
Whether you like the pictures or not, they were commercial successes— in 3-D— in their day.
THE TINGLER was in Percepto.
Oh, crap. I got the name wrong.
That was in Percepto, a format in which the ghosts appeared in through a lens handed to the audience patron. If you didn’t want to see the ghost anymore, you could watch the movie without the lens.
13 GHOSTS wasn’t in 3-D. It utilized a “Ghost Viewer” with red and blue filters. Look through one filter and the ghosts disappear, and visa versa.
KISS ME KATE played every major engagement in 3-D, including neighborhood theaters. In fact, there was such a demand for 3-D bookings, Technicolor had to strike additional left/right prints!
For the facts about HONDO, check out:
http://3-dfilmpf.org/info.html
Amen to what Bob said about anyone describing “Kiss Me Kate” as unbearable! Most movie fans (myself included) consider it one of the better 1950’s musicals and one of the better 3-D films. Too bad it came along right at the end at didn’t get more playdates in 3-D. Leonard Maltin gives it 3 ½ stars in his very reliable movie guide. He gives 3 stars to the other films mentioned with the exception of 2 ½ stars for “Cease Fire” which I didn’t much care for either although I never saw it in 3-D.
“House of Wax” and “Black Lagoon” “so bad they are funny”? Not in my opinion, then or now! Like you say Mr. Alvarez it is definitely subjective though…“different strokes for different folks”…and all that good stuff!
Speaking of “stroking” (sorry about that!) the 1969/71 adult softcore epic “The Stewardesses” has just been released on DVD in anaglyphic 3-D if any of you dirty old men or dirty young men (or women?) want a blast from the past. You can get it from Amazon and other web dealers. It’s pretty tame by today’s standards and pretty bad by the standards of any era, amazing that it played for months during it’s initial release. I remember when the good citizens of Berkeley were picketing the little Elmwood theatre because they were holding it over too long and keeping out the artsy foreign and independent films which were the normal fare of the Elmwood.
You’re right Al, it is extremely subjective and I dis-agree with you. The 50 3-D movies of that period are on a par with all other studio product of the time.
KISS ME KATE opened flat at the Music Hall for technical reasons. They were concerned with the loss of seating on the extreme sides of the orchestra. However, it did open city-wide in 3-D on the Loew’s circuit just in time for Christmas.
You’re the first person I’ve ever heard describe KATE as “unbearable!”