Blu-Ray Best Of The Best - for discussing releases only

[ezee ryder]

I agree, The Godfather I and II (De Niro is just awesome) are fantastic movies. Part III is ok but nothing compared to its predecessors.

"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

[JP]

The Godfather: Part III was the best of the series for me with the only real problem being that it was never actually a part of The Godfather series. The first two were fine but I really preferred the far more intimate feeling the third one had.

I do think it was a big mistake to give fans of the first two films what was essentially a character study of Michael and it was no wonder that some people didn't like it. The real shame is that the director wasn't allowed to release the film as independent to the other two with it not even carrying the Godfather name but I can understand Paramount's reasons for mis-selling it in that manner.

I mention that was the real problem but there was also the issue of Sofia Coppola not really having any right to be there combined with what must be some of the worst continuity that I've seen.

I do hope that the rumoured Godfather: Part IV that Paramount was wanting a couple of years back doesn't happen. The story ended just when it should have at the end of the second film.

EDIT:
Also, I'd really recommend Matteo Garrone's Gomorrah to people who enjoy Italian mobster stuff. As much as I enjoy the Godfather films, this really is a step above them for me. Brilliant!

[Baseley09]

Gamorrah was pretty good if a little blunt!

[Jebus]

THIS!
Bought the HP BD box set at xmas and like what you have said, now 6 months later we ain't watched em or I would have tried to tell you how they are transfer wise. Might have a gander now though and report back.

Damnit man! Watch one of them and report back asap!

[Brats]

The Godfather: Part III was the best of the series for me with the only real problem being that it was never actually a part of The Godfather series. The first two were fine but I really preferred the far more intimate feeling the third one had.

I'd argue it had a few more problems than that.

Chief among them were the repetitions of the earlier films (big party at the opening, montage of killings at the end) but neither sequence equalled what had gone before (and in the case of the bloke being stabbed

->Open Spoiler<-

with his own glasses

fell way below it).

Another issue was the utter change of Michael. By the end of 2, he has gradually changed the devil. Yet in 3 he is jokey, lovable uncle Mike, with no real explanation as to why he changed from such a heartless and ruthless killer into a family loving, cautious old man.

The whole thing lacks imagination and a respect for its audience that the two earlier films had. Things are far more signposted, whereas in the earlier films a lot of key scenes happen off screen.

Regarding the changes on the Blu-Ray, I haven't seen it and so can't comment on how the changes affect the film, but Coppola is notorious for his selective memory. The (vastly inferior imo) Apocalypse Now Redux contains scenes that Coppola was caught on camera during the original filming stating would never exist in hisfilm. Yet now they have strangely made it back into what he (and Walter Hill) calls the 'definitive version'. He was most unhappy with French Plantation scene citing what he called the terrible acting, yet now it's back in . I don't see how any remastering can make bad acting good.

[Bydo]

More Predator PQ madness from DVDTown - cue a well deserved Lyris rant!



Video:
"Predators" always looked a little chalky to me, and Dean gave the first Blu-ray release a 5 out of 10. With a sloppy MPEG-2 transfer scanned at only 19 MBPS, the first Blu-ray deserved a mediocre mark. This new remastered version is scanned at 33 MBPS, and while "Predator" is still a blue-tinted film with fog and shadows and darkness--not to mention the Predator's fuzzy point-of-view--but you catch a lot more that you did the first Blu-ray outing. This new transfer cleans up some of the noise and excessive grain, while also sharpening detail. Huge improvement visually. "Predator" is presented in the original 1.85:1 widescreen. (scored 8 out of 10! )

Bottom Line:
Fans who resent buying a Blu-ray twice may have their anger tempered by a transfer that blows away the previous release. "Predator" the Ultimate Hunter Edition is a huge improvement, and it should please fans who felt the film got dissed the first time the studio released it on Hi Def.

Full review:

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/predator/blu-ray/8207/2

[Escape-To-88]

Also, I'd really recommend Matteo Garrone's Gomorrah to people who enjoy Italian mobster stuff. As much as I enjoy the Godfather films, this really is a step above them for me. Brilliant!

I'd fully agree with John here. I imagine the pacing will be a little slow for some, but as a story I think it's wonderfully crafted and thought it was far superior to the Godather. However I have only seen the first one of the latter and that was a couple of years ago now.

Having seen both the Predator blu-rays through now, I must confess to preferring the latest issue. Yeah they may look slightly claymation in one or two points, but I think it's overall a tad more pleasing to the eye. Reminds me of the filters on MAME, FBAXXX and the like I did watch the Rocky set on Blu after the new Predator release and the amount of grain was instantly noticable. While I love a bit of grain as that's obviously the nature of the format, it is nice to see it cleaned up, or 'over-cleaned' as the case may be.

[Lyris]

More Predator PQ madness from DVDTown - cue a well deserved Lyris rant!

I'll save everyone's time:

This new remastered version is scanned at 33 MBPS

No it's not, it's scanned at data rates that would make your head spin and compressed to 33mbps, which is a fairly irrelevant number unless you know the encoder used...

Oh wait, I'm sorry. Bigger numbers are better, regardless of circumstances. Sorry, forgot that. This one goes up to 11...

[Lyris]

Robert Harris on this joke:

Whatever post facility created this master should be tarred, feathered and rode out of town on a log.

In the past I suggested that they should best be working in the manufacture of plastic combs, where nothing artistic might be harmed. No longer. And people actually get paid to create this garbage.

And here's Bill Hunt, he specifically mentions idiot reviewers who praise this sort of thing:

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[bash]

Robert Harris on this joke:


And here's Bill Hunt, he specifically mentions idiot reviewers who praise this sort of thing:
http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Its interesting, I didnt read all of it but I can tell the purists are getting all hot and bothered about this but I dont get it! I mean if joe non movie purist bloggs prefers wax works mode to grain city then surely thats ok? Why do the nerds have to go ape sh1t over it? chill out. I used to consider myself a bit of an av/gaming snob but these guys take the pi$$

Some people want remastered HD material to look super clear and smooth and not dark and gritty, sod what the director intended. the screenshots dont tell the whole story compared to watching the bloody thing.

My only complaint is the surround is not working the rears enough considering some of the crazy action on screen. I mean Im sure they could've done a better job when Mack goes nuts with ol' painless and it zooms out.

I realise I've probably typed a load of blasphemous ****e for you fan boys but Im not trolling, just offering a different opinion.

[JP]

Most TVs give people the option to distort the image for themselves if that's their preference.

Keep the data on the disc accurate and then at least people have a choice to watch it how they prefer, looking at the Predator screens it seems that choice has been taken away by making the data inaccurate on the disc.

[Lyris]

Its interesting, I didnt read all of it but I can tell the purists are getting all hot and bothered about this but I dont get it! I mean if joe non movie purist bloggs prefers wax works mode to grain city then surely thats ok? Why do the nerds have to go ape sh1t over it? chill out. I used to consider myself a bit of an av/gaming snob but these guys take the pi$$

Some people want remastered HD material to look super clear and smooth and not dark and gritty, sod what the director intended. the screenshots dont tell the whole story compared to watching the bloody thing.

My only complaint is the surround is not working the rears enough considering some of the crazy action on screen. I mean Im sure they could've done a better job when Mack goes nuts with ol' painless and it zooms out.

I realise I've probably typed a load of blasphemous ****e for you fan boys but Im not trolling, just offering a different opinion.

I dont get it!

Quick summary: it makes the film look like artificial crap.

if joe non movie purist bloggs prefers wax works mode to grain city then surely thats ok?

No, it is not OK. Joe Non Movie Purist Bloggs can watch DVDs or VHS tapes or most likely, illegal web downloads if he doesn't care about the picture quality or integrity of the image.

Why do the nerds have to go ape sh1t over it?

Because we love high quality video representations of films. Firing up a nice HDTV with a high quality Blu-ray Disc on a good home theatre setup can take you away to another world.

Some people want remastered HD material to look super clear and smooth

What part of this looks "clear"? The detail has been mangled.

and not dark and gritty,

Dark? There is no difference in brightness between the two.

the screenshots dont tell the whole story compared to watching the bloody thing.

They should tell a good chunk of the story. It's not as if the missing detail is magically going to re-appear and the film will suddenly become non-ugly when it starts to move :Rolleyes: in fact, it will probably look even worse in motion because of the processes involved.

As for your comments about nerds and fanboys, what else can I (we) say other than "you're welcome"? It's thanks to nerds (I count myself there, proudly) that we have a format better than DVD in the first place. HD and in particular, Blu-ray Disc are all about high quality video - if you don't care about the quality or the definition of High Definition content, then why do you have a High Definition TV?

[dvdx2]

Its interesting, I didnt read all of it but I can tell the purists are getting all hot and bothered about this but I dont get it! I mean if joe non movie purist bloggs prefers wax works mode to grain city then surely thats ok? Why do the nerds have to go ape sh1t over it? chill out. I used to consider myself a bit of an av/gaming snob but these guys take the pi$$

Some people want remastered HD material to look super clear and smooth and not dark and gritty, sod what the director intended. the screenshots dont tell the whole story compared to watching the bloody thing.

My only complaint is the surround is not working the rears enough considering some of the crazy action on screen. I mean Im sure they could've done a better job when Mack goes nuts with ol' painless and it zooms out.

I realise I've probably typed a load of blasphemous ****e for you fan boys but Im not trolling, just offering a different opinion.

i agree with you m8, although i'll probably upset the apple cart

I am paying for the source to be cleaned up - grit and grain free. When i look at an object with my eyes in the real world, i dont see a layer of grain over it. I can forgive BR's like saving private ryan/300 for the grain - its intentional and suits the action (although a option to remove it would be nice)

I bought the BR of sideways (one of my fav films), and feck me its dreadful - grain, grit , flecks , colour bleed, jez. I know its an 'indie' type fim, but i really craved for an immaculate print. There really isnt that much difference to a upscaled dvd. That really grips my ****

I would much rather have that new print of predator - look at the way a film like the omega man has been cleaned up for BR. Its a joy to watch - crisp/clean with fantastic detail. Then goto the extras and watch the old trailer.....

The old 'its the way the director intented it' doesnt wash with me either. Technology has moved on. I'm sure directors would have loved to have their work presented in crystal clear HD rather than people seeing a crackily old RF feed or VHS tape.

[Dogg Thang]

When i look at an object with my eyes in the real world, i dont see a layer of grain over it.

Do you see a layer of vaseline over it? Or a cheap Photoshop filter?

[dvdx2]

Do you see a layer of vaseline over it? Or a cheap Photoshop filter?

can you give me some examples of blu rays like this?

of course there need to be a balance - if its too processed, it can look artifical. My preference is a sharp, clean image that doesnt look like i am viewing it through a dirty window.