›

Back To The Future (25th Anniversary Theatrical Re-Release) Review - Alt Mag Online

martymcflymartymcfly
edited October 2010 in Back to the Future
Hey guys,

I have just reviewed Back To The Future (25th Anniversary Theatrical Re-Release) if any of you fancy a read!

FILM REVIEW – Back To The Future (25th Anniversary Theatrical Re-Release)

Would love to hear your thoughts! Such a classic film. :D

Comments

  • ClordClord
    edited October 2010
    Nice. :)
  • martymcflymartymcfly
    edited October 2010
    Clord wrote: »
    Nice. :)

    Thanks! :D
  • monkeymoviesmonkeymovies
    edited October 2010
    You'll be reviewing the BTTF episodes as they come out, I guess?
    :)
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited October 2010
    Your review is far too lenient on the amateur hour video quality. I don't know what version of the film *you* were watching, but it was definitely not the hack job I saw.
  • FutureGirl88FutureGirl88
    edited October 2010
    martymcfly wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    I have just reviewed Back To The Future (25th Anniversary Theatrical Re-Release) if any of you fancy a read!

    FILM REVIEW – Back To The Future (25th Anniversary Theatrical Re-Release)

    Would love to hear your thoughts! Such a classic film. :D

    Great review! I totally agree with it too! I saw it five times in the cinema in the UK and it was amazing, loved the HD!
  • martymcflymartymcfly
    edited October 2010
    monkeymovies wrote: »
    You'll be reviewing the BTTF episodes as they come out, I guess?
    :)

    Indeed I shall!
  • martymcflymartymcfly
    edited October 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    Your review is far too lenient on the amateur hour video quality. I don't know what version of the film *you* were watching, but it was definitely not the hack job I saw.

    I was watching the digitally remastered version of Back To The Future. It looked really good in *my* cinema. What more can I say?
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited October 2010
    That you need your eyes checked and to learn something about even the very basics of acceptable image quality in restored physical film?
  • martymcflymartymcfly
    edited October 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    That you need your eyes checked and to learn something about even the very basics of acceptable image quality in restored physical film?

    Wow, how bad mannered can you get? I thought it looked great and I have been a huge fan of the film for a number of years. If you are talking about grain, then that is a natural part of the image and shouldn't be completely removed anyway, because it can cause problems elsewhere (see Predator's re-release on Blu-ray which had rampant, reckless use of DNR, making Arnie look plastic in some scenes.)

    I might take what you are saying more seriously if you were not so aggresive and rude. I popped the DVD in when I got home from the cinema and it looked far worse. The Blu-ray looks even better than what I saw in the cinema. You are entitled to your opinion, but next time try to convey it with a little more class.
  • CyphoxCyphox
    edited October 2010
    any screens for comparison? any examples whats so bad about the hd re-release?

    any examples for remastered movies that do look so much better?

    you*re just saying "could be better with ease" (kind of) all the time, but you dont give examples whats exactly so bad about it.

    please, tell me, i really wanna know :confused:

    edit: see my sig? finally i can read whats written on the yellow sticker at the back of the truck the delorean was stored in at twin pines mall.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited October 2010
    martymcfly wrote: »
    Wow, how bad mannered can you get? I thought it looked great and I have been a huge fan of the film for a number of years. If you are talking about grain, then that is a natural part of the image and shouldn't be completely removed anyway, because it can cause problems elsewhere (see Predator's re-release on Blu-ray which had rampant, reckless use of DNR, making Arnie look plastic in some scenes.)
    The Back to the Future BRD is by no means the mangled mess that Predator and Gladiator were, but those are examples of TERRIBLE BRD transfers, rather than simply "mediocre" or "unnecessarily harmed".

    They essentially applied filters that hurt image quality to the master they used for the HDTV airings. Essentially the movie would have looked better if they had done NOTHING and just put the same master onto a BRD and take advantage of that bitrate rather than taking that same master and messing around with it. It's not that it looks horrible, it's that it looks worse than it would if they did nothing and it there is no justifiable reason it should, just incompetence by Universal.

    These examples stolen from a guy on AVSforum. These compare an HDTV airing before the "restoration" and the Blu-Ray after the "restoration".

    DNR example between HDTV airing and Blu-Ray, loss of texture

    Edge Enhancement Halo

    Crushed blacks. Here, detail is lost for just a jet black in these parts, there is no texture to it.

    Is it watchable? Yeah. Is it better than the DVD? Mostly, though it's a small trade-off. Is it worse than it should be, considering Universal could have spent the time picking their noses and done an actually better job? Hell yeah.
  • CyphoxCyphox
    edited October 2010
    okay, the face and the black stuff really does look very weird.

    damn you, universal!
Sign in to comment in this discussion.