| Site locale: United States |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Deals |
Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals » Now: Bond 50 for $118.99 (1 hour left) |
Top deals |
Price drops
|
![]() $4.99 | ![]() $4.99 | ![]() $9.99 | ![]() $4.99 | ![]() $4.99 | ![]() $24.96 | ![]() $14.26 | ![]() $4.99 | ![]() $6.09 | ![]() $14.99 | ![]() $5.00 | ![]() $24.96 | ![]() $4.99 | ![]() $7.96 | ![]() $12.10 | ![]() $19.96 | ![]() $22.99 | ![]() $4.99 | ![]() $34.99 |
|
|
#263 | |
|
Blu-ray Samurai
|
It isn't (on either film). While not what I would consider reference-grade quality, both are very representative of how I recall them appearing in theaters. The first movie has always had more of a softer (filtered) look to it due to the cinematographic process used for the film. And while the sequel offered a slightly sharper presentation, it was still similar (in many ways) to the first in terms of its overall visual style. I find a lot of the complaints I've read about these Blu-ray releases unfounded, as much of what people are claiming to be "bad mastering," actually has more to do with limitations inherent in the source materials, and how these films were photographed. Frankly, I wouldn't ever expect them to look a whole lot better than they currently do. It had been about 6 years since I saw either of these (back when I used to have them on DVD), and I thought the Blu-ray transfers of both were a strong upgrade over their DVD predecessors. I'm more than satisfied with them.
Quote:
As am I. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|