Blu-ray movies that are overrated?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by 42041

I find it best to be wary with releases by distributors like Criterion and Blue Underground, whose fanbase has a certain "they can do no wrong" mentality. Criterion's The 400 Blows, for instance, could pass for a DVD for the most part.

???

Maybe you should have your eyes checked or your system calibrated?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/Reviews/400_blows.htm

Yeah it looks exactly like a DVD. They even call it "the best digital presentation of The 400 Blows anywhere in the world. It is magnificent - I'm already thinking Blu-ray of the Year."

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by KaiGusto

Avatar.

It was like stepping back in time and watching VHS again.

youre being sarcastic right?

[HD Goofnut]

Both Transformers movies were dreadful and even their practically reference PQ and AQ couldn't save them.

[kpkelley]

Speed Racer. No HD audio, and the PQ is just an oversaturated paint by numbers. Yes, those colors are bright, but IMO details have been blown out by the oversaturation.


As for the Avatar comments, I've watched it a few times now and can notice only a handful of artifacts during the "live-action" scenes, many of which are undoubtedly because of the camera and not the transfer. The CGI scenes are pristine.

[MaCruz]

Reading this thread the first time and I knew someone would say Avatar.

Transfer is excellent! It doesn't mean that the movie itself has to be Great.

[blu_sharpy]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Speed Racer. No HD audio, and the PQ is just an oversaturated paint by numbers. Yes, those colors are bright, but IMO details have been blown out by the oversaturation.

I'd blame that on the Wachowski Brothers & Post Production. Not how WB handled the transfer.

[MaCruz]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Both Transformers movies were dreadful and even their practically reference PQ and AQ couldn't save them.

Okay this one. I do agree!

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

+1
That is certainly true of the cult distributors. The people inclined to review something from Criterion or Blue Underground are loathe to criticize the BD on the merits, simply being content with the obscure film finally being released. That also exists to some degree with older classics, which many seem to want to grade on a curve. If a disc looks bad, it does not matter how old or great the film is.

In regards to Criterion, I hear a lot of people state their releases are notorious for EE, but fortunately I never seem to notice it (I certainly have noticed it in much more extreme cases, but not for any Criterion title yet, and I'm told "Days of Heaven" has a bad case of it, yet it looks fantastic to me )

I guess I notice DNR much more readily than EE, and DNR isn't an issue that plagues Criterion releases......

I think Patton is overrated, but I still own it, and still prefer it (even with the 1" thick DNR) over my DVD copy due to the vivid colors etc......

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Dark Knight. I wouldn't say avoid buying it by any means, but it gets a lot of perfect scores for picture quality that, if you were just judging the IMAX scenes, would be spot on, but the rest of the scenes are pretty so-so.

i totally agree
and thats all im gona say, i dont wana get started on the dark knight
jus check my review

[ClaytonMG]

Maybe I misunderstood... but I don't think he's asking for people's opinions on movies. He's asking if there's overrated Blu-rays as far as the quality of the presentation goes.

[ClaytonMG]

Alright, well... I can see the simple question asked by the OP is going over most of the forum member's heads.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Alright, well... I can see the simple question asked by the OP is going over most of the forum member's heads.

Exactly.

You sure ain't kidding.




.

[42041]

Originally Posted by retablo

???

Maybe you should have your eyes checked or your system calibrated?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/Reviews/400_blows.htm

Yeah it looks exactly like a DVD. They even call it "the best digital presentation of The 400 Blows anywhere in the world. It is magnificent - I'm already thinking Blu-ray of the Year."

My eyes/system are fine, it's just a blurry transfer. But Beaver's blurb is exactly what I'm talking about: excessive praise of a blu-ray that's pretty unremarkable, other than being a Criterion release of a classic. To call it "magnificent" is to cheapen releases that actually are. I watched their release of Lola Montes a few days ago, another 50s anamorphic film, and it was on a whole other level.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by BStecke

What's wrong with the Avatar Blu-ray? It's pristine.

There's a lot of what looks like edge-enhancement artifacts on a lot of the scenes, even CGI scenes (unless there's footage of actors dressed as N'avi that was filmed, not sure... I can probably get some screen shots, but one good example is when Augustine goes to talk to Selfridge while he's practicing putting. The fluorescent light fixture loose some detail, and around the edges of the characters (Weaver especially) there's a weird 'halo', like what people see when they complain about edge enhancement...

Then there's the weird phenomenon in the two screen shots I've posted. These are just a few frames apart. Look at the big air conditioner (or whatever it is) hanging from the ceiling. Notice in the second picture there's a bunch of diagonal lines all through it. These diagonal lines fade in and out during this scene, and in many other scenes, especially ones with a solid-colored wall in the background.

For something that's getting perfect scores on VQ, I'm really surprised to find stuff like this. And it's not just one or two scenes, but all throughout the film...

I can't even think of anything that would cause these diagonal lines...

And there's a lot of color banding on gradients, especially the opening shot flying through the clouds. If they really wanted this movie to look pristine, they should have encoded the Blu-ray from a digital source, rather than putting it on tape and encoding from there (which is what it appears they did, thus causing the color banding). Hopefully they do the special edition set that way...

Rik

[Cortiz]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Dark Knight. I wouldn't say avoid buying it by any means, but it gets a lot of perfect scores for picture quality that, if you were just judging the IMAX scenes, would be spot on, but the rest of the scenes are pretty so-so.

If a movie it's shown on IMAX, why can't the studios release the entire movie the way it was shown on IMAX? Why only selected scenes? Does anyone knows the answer?

[Canada]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Maybe the audio? I know that a couple of people noticed the audio doesn't go down past 25hz. Kind of an odd thing... Plus some of the dialogue didn't sound so hot.

I'd agree about The Dark Knight. Granted it looks exactly like the IMAX print would, but that's not a good thing since it's DNR'd and EE'd to the max. But the IMAX stuff looks amazingly great.

My choice is Planet Earth though. It just doesn't look like it's near today's standards.

You also have to remember that Planet Earth is at least 3 years old.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

If a movie it's shown on IMAX, why can't the studios release the entire movie the way it was shown on IMAX? Why only selected scenes? Does anyone knows the answer?

OAR... and cropping to suit "fullscreeners" is something i hope never happens on blu-ray the way it did with dvd. Let them zoom since they don't mind quality loss.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Canada

You also have to remember that Planet Earth is at least 3 years old.

And that some of that footage was obtained from former documentaries, i think the actual HD shots, especially the ones from the sky are amazing and still some of the best HD content available.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

If a movie it's shown on IMAX, why can't the studios release the entire movie the way it was shown on IMAX? Why only selected scenes? Does anyone knows the answer?

Only those selected scenes are shot in IMAX. The rest is shot in anamorphic 35mm, and would have been shown that way on IMAX screens.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by 42041

My eyes/system are fine, it's just a blurry transfer. But Beaver's blurb is exactly what I'm talking about: excessive praise of a blu-ray that's pretty unremarkable, other than being a Criterion release of a classic. To call it "magnificent" is to cheapen releases that actually are. I watched their release of Lola Montes a few days ago, another 50s anamorphic film, and it was on a whole other level.

And you are grading film from a terrible standpoint. While the 400 Blows may not be demo material, from a restoration/upgrade standpoint it is an amazing release.

By your own logic you can't include Lola Montes in the great PQ discussion because it still pales in comparison to modern releases with top tier PQ...

Basically, you are saying you generically prefer this title over that title with no real yardstick...

And perhaps you should cruise the Criterion thread more often because do point out mediocre transfers (Kagemusha, for example...full of low bitrate macro blocking and possible EE).

Likewise, when you see the mostly mediocre transfers done by the Studio Canal collection its easy to be more forgiving of Criterions faults because their worst release looks better than most older resorations/encodes.

And yes, a film should be judged on whether or not its the best its looked or if its the best it could look. Its substantially harder to restore and encode a film to Blu shot on 16mm with print damage that is over 50 years old vs a brand new release that had a DI made as soon as it was finished that a monkey could encode...