Basic Instinct (1992) (Unrated Director's Cut)

[OrchidClub]

Those screenshots look terrible to me. I mean yeah, Blu-rays ALWAYS look better in motion but the screenshots are practically scrubbed clean of all detail and texture.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by OrchidClub

Those screenshots look terrible to me. I mean yeah, Blu-rays ALWAYS look better in motion but the screenshots are practically scrubbed clean of all detail and texture.

Best part...in motion, the Basic Instinct transfer exhibits smearing and ghosting.

Apparently, the bar for "Incredible" and "Amazing" is pretty low.

[dwane5]

bout to pop this one in. its worth 5.99 whatever it looks like. blu ray.com gave it 4 stars. good for me.

[Oblivion138]

Take all early Blu-ray reviews with a grain of salt. Many reviewers were so mesmerized by HD in the early days of the format that they were prone to overlooking flaws that would be thoroughly dissected today. And sometimes, they didn't even have to overlook the flaws...they could just pretend they weren't there. The Basic Instinct review was from 2008...later that same year, Blu-ray.com's review for The Dark Knight would try to explain away all the edge enhancement on that film's transfer by acknowledging it, then claiming it wasn't actually edge enhancement. haha

[javir]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Take all early Blu-ray reviews with a grain of salt. Many reviewers were so mesmerized by HD in the early days of the format that they were prone to overlooking flaws that would be thoroughly dissected today. And sometimes, they didn't even have to overlook the flaws...they could just pretend they weren't there. The Basic Instinct review was from 2008...later that same year, Blu-ray.com's review for The Dark Knight would try to explain away all the edge enhancement on that film's transfer by acknowledging it, then claiming it wasn't actually edge enhancement. haha

they should redo some of the earlier reviews but that would take so much time and is not like no new titles are coming out to review. I guess they could get someone else to do the old reviews and then we can have the option to read both the original and the new one.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by javir

they should redo some of the earlier reviews but that would take so much time and is not like no new titles are coming out to review. I guess they could get someone else to do the old reviews and then we can have the option to read both the original and the new one.

A general piece of advice would be to ignore almost any positive review from before 2009 or so. There is still merit in the negative reviews, as nothing has altered our viewpoint to make those bad, early Blu-rays any better. But most of the positive reviews would be much harsher now if the particular disc was released today. Standards have evolved as reviewers have come to expect more from the format.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by dwane5

bout to pop this one in. its worth 5.99 whatever it looks like. blu ray.com gave it 4 stars. good for me.

It still has Sharon Stone in it and that is 10 stars for me. It is a step up from the DVD. Unfortunately I was never able to get the D-Theater tape that was made but never released.

[dwane5]

well, as i watch it now, its not all that bad.i think its a 7 or an 8 on a 10 scale (PQ).

sharon needs to pluck her eye brows lol

the eco case has to go, it would look so much nicer in a white case.

[Oblivion138]

You've got much lower standards than I do, then. No transfer that features that level of DNR, with accompanying smears and ghosting, will ever get anything higher than a 5 out of 10 from me.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

You've got much lower standards than I do, then. No transfer that features that level of DNR, with accompanying smears and ghosting, will ever get anything higher than a 5 out of 10 from me.

Agreed. I own it and it's an old transfer that is too processed.

Hopefully, it will get a true remaster one day.