Gladiator (2000)

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Oh ok....it works for some and not others? Hmm..... god what a great argument there! Attention..the so called over use of DNR works for some films and not others? Wow.....but I will leave it at that. Lets not get the arguemnt right one way or another lets just leave the reviews inconsistent so the buyer has no clue.

But whatever...

Uh, yes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[davcole]

I think the bass comes through a bit muddied. Not a lot of fine detail in the bass. Now what I did notice is that I had to turn the volume up considerably, perhaps that's where you notice a lack of bass as the volume does need to be adjusted up. I don't think the track is that great.

[MrRoy]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Just an observation... but it's usually the best equipment that shows up any flaws. It's usually poor equipment that doesn't as it is not capable of doing so. So if this release is as bad as it is said to be, then it is you that should be buying some better equipment.

Just an observation!!!

I was kidding, don't take it so seriously. But, if the American release is so terrible I must have accidentally gotten the Canadian version .

This, by no means, is the best looking BD ever. On a scale of 1-10, I would give it a 7.5. For the faces that look like claymation, I wonder if it is the makeup. I have seen people in plays and when upclose, their makeup makes them look like Gumby.

I just watched the DVD upscaled the other day. There are parts, a lot of parts, that look better. There are parts that look the same and there are some parts that look worse.

[Big Z]

I have two comments...

1.) The review was a flat out fence ride. Way to play it right down the middle and please both sides. The reviewer basically made it sound like it sucked, but not really. There were problems, but hey, it's a great flick so they can be ignored through most areas. Just disappointing that there wasn't a more definitive review.

I really thought to myself "they are doing Gladiator after Braveheart because they want to make sure this review makes a statement, and speaks for the majority on how this films PQ fell well below the ANTICIPATED bar. Braveheart (1995) was spot on in its quality. Why not Gladiator(2000)?

2.) I just got done watching the first two episodes of House, M.D. with my wife. I had more positive comments about it's picture quality throughout than I did about the entirety of Gladiator. Oh yeah, did I mention House was a DVD?

I really hoped this film would not disappoint me....but it still did, even more so after watching Braveheart shortly thereafter.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Wow a 3.0 on the PQ hmmm....and Patton was given a 5.0. Lets see Patton was bashed by the DNR police just as this one was. I think you better go change your grade on the Patton review now.

My god...what might work for one movie doesn't automatically apply to every other......and as it was posted above, Gladiator had several problems besides DNR.....

Originally Posted by Big Z

I have two comments...

1.) The review was a flat out fence ride. Way to play it right down the middle and please both sides. The reviewer basically made it sound like it sucked, but not really. There were problems, but hey, it's a great flick so they can be ignored through most areas. Just disappointing that there wasn't a more definitive review

IMO, Martin clearly stated that the video quality was not up to par with both expectations and the other Sapphire release, Braveheart. He also made a point of noting that each person should be their own judge since the movie IS a popular release and some may be bothered by the transfer and others may not If you were waiting for the review to base your purchase off of (and I'm guessing most people were looking directly at the PQ rating), I believe it is important to note that Martin definitely confirms all the problems we have been discussing and describes them in detail, even stating "Fine detail can look acceptably good throughout despite the problems, but it never looks completely natural or film-like." Sounds pretty definitive to me, but to each his own

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

My god...what might work for one movie doesn't automatically apply to every other......and as it was posted above, Gladiator had several problems besides DNR.....

I said the reviewer had no choice but the split the difference.

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

My god...what might work for one movie doesn't automatically apply to every other......and as it was posted above, Gladiator had several problems besides DNR.....

Don't bother trying to explain it to him, he is clearly incapable of understanding such a simple and obvious concept.

[Big Z]

Sussudio,

I see your point and it is a valid and good one. He did take Gladiator down the notches to where it belonged in the review.

I guess the review, overall, ended up sounding like a "it's not great, but hey! Isn't it great to see Gladiator in a 3 star rated HD setting anyways (so we won't REALLY complain about it's short commings)!?!?!

Maybe you're right though, He did give it a 3 stars for PQ (meaning half was a 2 and half was a 4 in quality). I don't know...just seemed like a please all review, for a movie that I don't think is a getting a "please all" type of praise.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Big Z

Sussudio,

I see your point and it is a valid and good one. He did take Gladiator down the notches to where it belonged in the review.

I guess the review, overall, ended up sounding like a "it's not great, but hey! Isn't it great to see Gladiator in a 3 star rated HD setting anyways (so we won't REALLY complain about it's short commings)!?!?!

Maybe you're right though, He did give it a 3 stars for PQ (meaning half was a 2 and half was a 4 in quality). I don't know...just seemed like a please all review, for a movie that I don't think is a getting a "please all" type of praise.

I understand where you're coming from I think it was a difficult release to review because on one hand, everyone assumes the reputation of the title should automatically equal a stellar transfer (and it should), so it was disappointing to many to see a "mediocre" transfer for such a critically acclaimed movie. However, IMO, the transfer is not incredibly poor and many people agree that it looks at least decent if not slightly better than decent (and even pretty good in some scenes), so I can see how confusion can exist while trying to rate the overall quality. Nothing looks downright horrendous, and I think Martin tried to reflect that in his review by rating it only slightly above average, which is exactly what a 3/5 is (to me at least) Also try and think of it this way, giving a HUGE release like Gladiator only a 3/5 for the PQ is still a nice little kick in the face to Paramount. We should have been seeing 4.5-5/5's for this one.

[TheZoof]

I think the review sounded good to me. What I don't get is the non 5 star rating for the film itself...

[Beta Man]

My take.... from reading the review, in terms of PQ only......

He doesn't "Ride the Fence" in an attempt to play both sides as some suggest (or flat out accuse) It seems to me that he's giving positive, and negative points of the transfer which support his rating of "3.0" for the PQ. If he completely bashed it, you'd say "He completely bashed the PQ, so how does it deserve a 3.0 and not 1.0 or 1.5" and if he gave it a 3.0, yet stated how glorious it looked, people would say "he said it was great, so why not a 4.0 or 4.5.... or heck... a perfect 5"

I found the review fair, and well supported by his comments.

EDIT:

The ratings don't mean much..... as it's been shown that some people hate grain, others aren't sensitive to EE etc..... and when it comes to the film itself.... One person's opinion should never make the viewer determine how much they enjoy a film that they've already critiqued for themselves .




I'd give the film itself a 3.0, maybe 3.5 A lot of "Cheesy" moments in it for me.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

Don't bother trying to explain it to him, he is clearly incapable of understanding such a simple and obvious concept.

No I do understand. You must not know the history of this argument is all I can say.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

My take.... from reading the review, in terms of PQ only......

He doesn't "Ride the Fence" in an attempt to play both sides as some suggest (or flat out accuse) It seems to me that he's giving positive, and negative points of the transfer which support his rating of "3.0" for the PQ. If he completely bashed it, you'd say "He completely bashed the PQ, so how does it deserve a 3.0 and not 1.0 or 1.5" and if he gave it a 3.0, yet stated how glorious it looked, people would say "he said it was great, so why not a 4.0 or 4.5.... or heck... a perfect 5"

I found the review fair, and well supported by his comments.

EDIT:

The ratings don't mean much..... as it's been shown that some people hate grain, others aren't sensitive to EE etc..... and when it comes to the film itself.... One person's opinion should never make the viewer determine how much they enjoy a film that they've already critiqued for themselves .




I'd give the film itself a 3.0

I agree with that. The review was fair and pointed out the strong points and the weak points of the film.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

My take.... from reading the review, in terms of PQ only......

He doesn't "Ride the Fence" in an attempt to play both sides as some suggest (or flat out accuse) It seems to me that he's giving positive, and negative points of the transfer which support his rating of "3.0" for the PQ. If he completely bashed it, you'd say "He completely bashed the PQ, so how does it deserve a 3.0 and not 1.0 or 1.5" and if he gave it a 3.0, yet stated how glorious it looked, people would say "he said it was great, so why not a 4.0 or 4.5.... or heck... a perfect 5"

I found the review fair, and well supported by his comments.

EDIT:

The ratings don't mean much..... as it's been shown that some people hate grain, others aren't sensitive to EE etc..... and when it comes to the film itself.... One person's opinion should never make the viewer determine how much they enjoy a film that they've already critiqued for themselves .




I'd give the film itself a 3.0, maybe 3.5 A lot of "Cheesy" moments in it for me.

Your missing the point with Patton though. It was NOT just DNR.....

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

I think it was a difficult release to review because on one hand, everyone assumes the reputation of the title should automatically equal a stellar transfer (and it should), .

This is a testament to a good reviewer..... one that can dissect and comment on the PQ alone, whether it's Ben-Hur, or Meet the Spartans.

[Big Z]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

I understand where you're coming from I think it was a difficult release to review because on one hand, everyone assumes the reputation of the title should automatically equal a stellar title (and it should), so it was very disappointing to see a "mediocre" transfer on such a critically acclaimed movie. However, IMO, the transfer is not incrediblypoor and many people agree that it looks at least decent if not slightly better than decent (and even pretty good in some scenes), so I can see how confusion can exist while trying to rate the overall quality. Nothing looks downright horrendous, and I think Martin tried to reflect that in his review by rating it only slightly above average, which is exactly what a 3/5 is (to me at least)

Right on. I think we are in general agreement now. Thanks for the clarity.

Maybe I was looking for a "lets get our pitch-forks and knock down the door of Paramount/Universal cause they handed us mediocre" type of statement. That statement never materialized, hence my frustration.

I didn't realize how this average transfer would flop my "favorite movie to watch" list from 1) Gladiator 2) Braveheart....to 1) Gladiator 2) .....3) Gladiator.

Cuts me real deep.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Your missing the point with Patton though. It was NOT just DNR.....

I'm commenting on the review of Gladiator, regarding the PQ alone...... I'm not sure what Patton has to do with anything I said.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm commenting on the review of Gladiator, regarding the PQ alone...... I'm not sure what Patton has to do with anything I said.

Regarding the 3.0 PQ

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Regarding the 3.0 PQ

yeah.... the 3.0 PQ rating was given to Gladiator.....

AGAIN.....

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PATTON?

If he mentioned Patton in the review..... I guess I missed it

[Tempest]

Well I bought Gladiator and feel a little dirty about doing it.. but with the Best Buy Deal and the DVD Mail in Rebate.. I am only paying $9.01 or so for Gladiator on Blu ray and 9.01 for Braveheart as well on Blu..

I did pay more for the DVD versions than I did for the Blu Ray editions.