Loew's Jersey Theatre

54 Journal Square,
Jersey City, NJ 07306

Unfavorite 90 people favorited this theater

Showing 1,276 - 1,300 of 1,467 comments

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on March 11, 2005 at 11:54 pm

Let’s fill it with 3300 people and see how it sounds then!

PeterApruzzese on March 11, 2005 at 7:52 pm

The Jersey does not have mag stereo capability at this time, so a mag print – if even a runnable one still exists – of Ben-Hur wouldn’t have done them any good. Optical Dolby Stereo can sound very good when the proper care is taken transferring the mag tracks. The LJ has a bit of an echo problem, but overall the sound is good, IMO.

MrAudio on March 11, 2005 at 2:13 pm


It’s quite possible. I remember being very young when seeing it and for me the late 60’s and early 70’s kind of blend together. ;)

It is quite possible it wasn’t a wide re-release and I saw it as a “one-off” matinee at my local theater (The UA Ridgewood in Brooklyn) They used to do that quite a bit back then. I do remember it was during the afternoon when I came out pretending I was riding that cahriot.

I do know I saw The Ten Commnadments on it’s last go round in about ‘73 or '74 in Downtown Brooklyn. I was about 10 and was sick, but my folks thought I should see it on the big screen at least once. To show you where my head was at cinematically at the time…when Vincent Price came on screen I blurted out “Mom, you didn’t tell me this was a Vincent Price movie!!” lol

And…IB prints are available. Archives and private collectors are in posession of many, many treasured titles. And that ties into one of Bob’s biggest strengths in that he is well known and respected by both sides. He can get things done in respect to getting good, accurate prints. His rep in both camps is something that is extraordinarily hard to achieve in the celluloid jungle.

RobertR on March 11, 2005 at 2:02 pm

Many collectors have IB prints. One of my friends has an IB GTWT in 16mm. A few times he had prints I wanted to show at Cinema Village so I would book the film the regular way but use his prints.

VincentParisi on March 11, 2005 at 1:44 pm

Mr.Audio could you be talking about the late ‘60’s rather than early 70’s for the last go round? And are the IB prints for films like GWTW and Ben Hur even available? The studios for these classic films seem pretty uncaring.
However when I win the lottery and build my classic film theater adaptable for everything from silents to CinemaScope 2.55 to Todd AO to 3 screen Cinerama I want Bob to program it for me.

teecee on March 11, 2005 at 1:41 pm

I don’t think that this link has been posted here yet:

Keep hitting the “More pictures” button for all three pages.

MrAudio on March 11, 2005 at 12:20 pm

It’s good to see I’m not the only one who felt the showing was off!

As far as the color goes, it’s a resolution issue. The tone of the colors was close, but the shades and nuances were obliterated. A classic case of poor quality control, rushed Eastmancolor processing. I saw Ben-Her in it’s last go round as a kid in the early 70’s and it looked rich. It left an impression on me the way the earth tone color scheme of much of the movie was so vivid and opulent.

I was thinking about that last night, and it did dawn on me that some of the faults I found with the print may not have been faults as such. One thing that bears mentioning that I forgot and no one seems to have picked up on, is the issue of “horses for courses” (if I can make the pun)

Up a ways in this discussion forum you’ll note entries from Bob Furmanek about his departure from being programmer at the theater.

Now, the one thing that Bob did there more than any other that contributed to the wonderful success of his screenings was his attention to the prints used.

The carbon arc lighting that the Jersey uses forms a synergistic match to the old dense IB tech and black and white prints that he would book for showings. It’s a bright, bright, light, and much less “blue” illumination than modern Xenon lamps. Modern prints just don’t look good with that type of projection. That may explain the washed out look and off color of the film last Saturday. I think it can even affect preception of focus.

This is why it is so sad they parted ways. I know he would have scored an archive IB Tech print with Mag tracks for Ben-Hur if he were still affiliated with them. And he would have also scored a true archive IB tech print of “Gone With The Wind” as well.

It’s a shame when these “factions” develop and cause misery. I can only hope one day the wounds will heal and the “family” that started the Lowe’s Jersey ressurection will be whole again.

And Andyc, I hear ya on the sightlines issue. I always wondered why they built theaters with such a subtle angle to the floor back then. I’m only 5'4", and it would be very unfortunate to have sat behind you last Saturday! LOL!! I mean…that issue had to exist back then, no? :P

VincentParisi on March 10, 2005 at 11:54 am

Interesting because I am very sensitive to focus and if it is slightly off it drives me crazy whereas other people don’t seem to notice or care unless it is really bad. And yes there were times when it was slightly out of focus but I thought the projectionist really did a good job of keeping on top of it. I’ve had experiences in the past where entire reels would be out of focus and I would have to complain.
As for the color. I saw a bit of the film not long ago on TCM and I would say the color was comparable and it also matches the tones in the souvenir book for the movie. So what did the movie really look like in ‘59?

andyc on March 10, 2005 at 11:00 am

i attended ben hur this past saturday and would echo some of MrAudio’s criticisms, unfortunately. while the chariot race looked really good and there is no substitute for seeing the race on a big screen with pounding audio, i agree that parts of the film did look washed out. the biggest problem for me was that much or most of the film was not in really sharp focus. i was glad to see it get focused at the very beginning when anno domini flashed on the screen, but within 10 minutes the focus was very soft. i think one projector may have been in better focus than the other. the dialogue sounded amazingly crisp in sound quality as projected, though the music under the dialog did sound a little buried. this all may sound ungrateful, but also the sightlines right now are such that anyone sitting in front of you is liable to block the screen a little, and i am six feet tall. however, i have liked the theater a lot since i first visited around 1996 and am amazed and in admiration that the volunteers have been able to do the truly heroic restoration of the theater, as well as managing to keep it open in the face of great adversity.

RobertR on March 8, 2005 at 8:51 pm

Just wanted to let everyone know Town Hall is running the Douglas Fairbanks film “The Black Pirate” with a live orchestra this Sunday at 2pm. The tickets are on sale through Ticketmaster.

VincentParisi on March 8, 2005 at 8:30 am

Many years ago I saw Selznick’s Tom Sawyer at the MOMA. It was probably one of the first 3 strip Technicolor films. The print was excellent and while the colors were rich they also gave the effect of water color illustations in a children’s book of the period.
This contrasted enormously with the TS I saw at the Music Hall in ‘73 with its grainy washed out home movie look. Technically films at that point had become so shoddy and no one seemed to notice.

PeterApruzzese on March 8, 2005 at 7:40 am

It certainly could be, YankeeMike. Warner just hasn’t done it yet.

YMike on March 8, 2005 at 6:58 am

Last month I saw “Thief Of Bagdad” & “Robin Hood” at the Loews and the prints looked and sounded great. Those films were technicolor and were made at about the same time as GWTW so why can’t a print of GWTW be made to look as clear as those films?

MrAudio on March 7, 2005 at 10:20 pm

Hi Robert

That is an issue that has been kind of a hot potato for a while. I think a lot of the myth of super saturated Technicolor stems from reissue prints that weren’t as carefully timed as opposed to first run issues. According to the book “Glorious Technicolor” the whole goal of Technicolor was natural looking color, not gaudy eye popping hues.

The magazine “The Perfect Vision” used to debate this very topic many years ago, and examination of actual premiere IB tech prints (or remnants of them) showed much more subdued color than reissue copies of the same films. Gone with the Wind in particular seemed to have wildly fluctuating color levels and schemes depending on what reissue print one examined and what process was used. (1939, 1954, technicolr and 1960’s MetroColor etc…)

Another point was IB tech prints don’t make for accurate video transfers. The prints are too dense for most telecine machines and the colors get screwed up there as well. So most of the “technicolor” DVDs out today aren’t from IB prints at all.

Early Techniclor was quite subtle as it was found audiences complained that strong color hurt their eyes. Films like “The Wizard of Oz” had bold colors, but that was a fantasy film. And all the expressionistic films like “The Red Shoes” or the later Gene Kelly and Stanley Donan musicals also featured bold and vivid colors.

So, I’d have to say the answer is its not so much toned down, but the goal of natural looking color is being restored to films that in the past were being seen in an artifically pumped up state.

RobertR on March 7, 2005 at 9:44 pm


Read my above posts regarding IB Technicolor. Do you agree the DVD releases seem like the color is toned down?

MrAudio on March 7, 2005 at 9:17 pm

I was at the Ben-Hur screening and I was actually disappointed by the print used. I thought it was pretty bad! It looked very dupey and washed out to me, with poor color consistency between reels, and a lack of razor sharp detail that a good 65mm to 35mm reduction usually provides. The sound also wasn’t that great; it sounded like a standard Dolby optical matrix track instead of a discrete 4 channel source, which meant separation was pretty poor. The music score sounded like it was underwater most of the time. That was no fault of the Lowe’s though. I’ve seen other stereo films there that looked and sounded spectacular.

What was a problem theater wise, seemed to be a faulty projector which caused considerable “wow” whenever the music score swelled. I blame the projector since it happened only in every other reel. Maybe those new projectors came just in time! Side note, will the new projectors use the carbon arc illumination now in place? I sure hope so.

It’s a shame a true IB Tech archival 35mm ‘Scope print wasn’t utilized as this title is one of the most visually spectacular films ever made. A true achivement from the heyday of widescreen photography.

Even with all that though, the sheer spectacle of the film kept one entranced for the almost four hour running time. They really don’t know how to make ‘em like that anymore!

mahermusic on March 7, 2005 at 8:17 pm

The Loew’s Jersey closed on Thursday, August 21, 1986.

RobertR on March 7, 2005 at 3:43 pm

I don’t have the latest GWTW DVD, I keep meaning to buy it. What I was basing my post on was the latest Meet Me In St Louis. Does anyone who has worked with real IB Tech prints knopw what Im referring to?

RobertEndres on March 7, 2005 at 3:39 pm

I was Head Projectionist at Radio City in 1989 when we did the 50th Anniversary screenings of GWTW. The two prints we had were full 1.37 aspect ratio prints, one of which had been pulled two points lighter (as was common) for Radio City projection. Unfortunately, that print had an optical stereo track, and everyone from MOMA and the West Coast felt the mono track simply sounded better than the stereo track run in mono, which we decided to do for the sake of authenticity. The color balance was slightly different on that print as it was done for a video transfer, but we put the same reel up from both prints and ran them together with “split” aperture plates, so the pictures could be compared directly side by side. They actually were very close, and of course used the full 1.37 frame without the necessity for deanamorphosis.

YMike on March 7, 2005 at 3:18 pm

I saw GWTW at Radio City in 1989 when they had a special 50th anniversary event. I could swear that print looked better then this 1999 “restored” print.

RobertR on March 7, 2005 at 3:00 pm

This site which says its the official GWTW makes a big deal that the film is being re-released (1999) in the best color in the last 35 years.
View link

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on March 7, 2005 at 1:44 pm

Mike: the Loew’s officially closed in 1986. Here is the theater history page from their website:


The Stanley no longer shows movies but you can take a tour of the theater, which has been fully restored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The State, sadly, no longer exists. In its place is a high-rise apartment/office building which hasn’t opened yet. The State is the one I went to the most when I was a kid in the 1960’s (they got all the Disney movies).

Mikeoaklandpark on March 7, 2005 at 1:38 pm

When did this theater close? I lived in Jersey City for about a month in May of 77. That was the time that the RKO Stanley closed. I never got to go to either theater. The only theater I went to was the State.

VincentParisi on March 7, 2005 at 1:29 pm

Is that true? Color is being toned down in
DVD’s? That would be insane!

RobertR on March 7, 2005 at 1:08 pm

It’s sad that Gone With the Wind the greatest film of all time(in my humble opinion anyways) has to be shown in less them 100% form. With so many of the Technicolor films even the DVD, the color tends to be adjusted to look more realistic. The trouble is they were made to have that dreamy saturated look. A perfect example is Meet Me In St Louis. The new DVD transfer is pristine but the colors have been toned down to a more modern look.