Recently picked up Hammer's The Resident. Better than I expected it to be, to be honest. A nice little film. Seems to be a reworking of the Christopher Fowler short story 'The Master Builder', which was also made into a pretty decent TV movie back in the early '90s.

Also recently received my A Bittersweet Life Korean LE. Beautiful transfer on that one, and lovely digibook packaging is the icing on the cake. One of my favourite editions in my collection, in fact, right up there with the Arrow Battle Royale set. Yes, it really is that lovely!

Finally got around to picking up Arrow's Day Of The Dead Blu with some of my birthday money. Fantastic transfer on that one, too, and especially enjoyable considering I've only ever seen this one on VHS!

Also received my Pulp Fiction steelbook from Play, but have yet to give it a spin. :pop2:

Not reviews as such, just people on other forums rubbishing the BU releases, even the newest two Fulci offerings.

Personally, I've found all the BU releases I've picked up so far to be very satisfying and I'm more than happy with them. Even Maniac, which came under a lot of heavy fire, seems okay to me. I think it looks exactly as it should: cheap, grimy, grubby and thoroughly unpleasant.

I think far too many people miss the point of BD. Everyone expects the screen to 'pop like 3D clarity'. That's not really what BD is all about. What it does is allow the film to be presented as near to the original intent as possible. The best BDs are not the films that 'pop' but those that most accurately recreate a filmic appearance. Films that 'pop' tend to be overly processed. That's NOT what HD is all about. Clarity and detail should be improved, most certainly. I think many people expect all films on BD to look like new films. This will never be the case, as most modern films are shot in HD. So it's digital information being transferred to a digital format. That's completely different to transferring 35mm to BD. That's not saying one is better than the other, just different. A 35mm film transferred to BD can look spectacular, but in a different way to modern films. The filmmaking technology is completely different now to what it was even 10 years ago. as a consequence, modern audiences have different expectations when they buy films. They want everything to look like the latest blockbuster. Personally, I'm not a fan of the look of modern films, they look too polished and fake, like processed video games.

And, as much as we all want wonderful, crisp and detailed transfers, I think people get too lost in the technology and forget to enjoy the films themselves. They're too busy fretting over some edge enhancement or DNR. I can honestly say, even knowing what edge enhancement is, that I've never, ever noticed it. It's certainly never distracted me if it is there and didn't detract from the viewing experience. Bad transfers are obvious and most people agree when a company puts out a shoddy transfer. But all this nit picking over the minutest of details is pointless IMO. Although I'm sure those same people would argue that it's because of them putting pressure on companies that we get better transfers. Not that I'd particularly agree with that.

If it's anything like their DVD release then I'm sure it's amazing


Sometimes, dead is better

I'm getting really tempted with that ltd edit BD of A BITTERSWEET LIFE. I really love that movie. I notice it says its region A. Is it locked? And how long do orders take to arrive from yesasia on average?

On a side note Eureka's online store blow me away with their service time and time again. I ordered the newly rereleased CITY GIRL and SUNRISE BDs at like midday yesterday and they arrive this morning. Fantastic!

I'm assuming these are unrelated criticisms on people who criticize certain blu-ray in general? Because they are all unrelated. People are criticizing the latest blu-rays for the one reason. They believe it is not being presented in the way it would have looked originally on 35mm. I haven't seen either of the titles so I can't say if they are right or wrong, but one of the (few) negative comments I've read is that it has suffered from DNR (one of the very things that gives a movie a "polished and fake, like processed video game" look) but also has video noise which makes it appear wonderfully grainy in places.
To them, the DNR is noticeable and distracting, and thus a shoddy transfer.

For the record, I really liked Burial Ground, a blu-ray that these same complainers wrote off for the very same reason they are criticizing the latest Fulci blus, and will probably like the ltest Fulci blus when I get them.

Quoting myself as I can't seem to figure out how to easily edit with my shitty phone.

I'm not saying dnr is bad, just the way it can be used. Criterion use dnr (and other
Image manipulation) and consistently put out top tier products. Aliens was dnr ed, and it looks fantastic.

Yes, I'm not thinking of any single individual or anything like that. I'm just saying that sometimes the critics get so lost in the technicalities of a BD transfer that they're missing out on enjoying the film. I also think, sometimes, they're seeing things that just aren't there or aren't all that noticeable. I think they're missing out on enjoying the films because they're too busy analysing the image for defects. I mean, actively looking for flaws, determined to find some. The flaws may well be there, but I never notice them. I'm too busy enjoying the films. If it was obvious, I'd probably be unhappy, but they're not obvious to me. I don't mean to sound facetious, but I've better things to do with my time than analyse film transfers looking for problems. I tend to just chuck a film on and chill out, and I'm a happy bunny. That's just me, but I understand people are different with varying expectations.

Look, when a studio ****s up a transfer I fully expect people to be up in arms about it. But some of the critcisms being levelled against BU and Arrow etc seem a bit unfounded. If universally people were panning the transfers, they'd have a point, but when it's something a large majority of people aren't even noticing, it gets all a bit silly. That's not to say that studios shouldn't consistently strive to provide the best transfers they can, I'm not saying that. They certainly should.

Reaps mentions Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue, this is another title some people are saying is a ****ed up transfer with too much DNR and edge enhancement etc. I don't see it myself, does anyone else? The blame, they say, lies with the lab in Rome. Knowing Lustig, he wouldn't stand for anything second rate, if stories are to be believed, so I'm sure if there was a problem at the Rome lab, he would've been there and sorted it out by now.

I don't know, whilst it's good to be critical, I also think there's such a thing as being overly critical. These people who make these criticisms are rarely happy with anything. They must be really miserable never buying a BD they're happy with. :lol:

These just popped through the post :)

http://i.imgur.com/Qhyek.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/auhHx.jpg

This week's arrivals.

It was cheaper buying Tales from the Crypt with a cut Vault of Horror as a freebie than it was buying the region 2 release.