PDA

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

martymcfly
10/18/2010, 08:40 am
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) (http://alternativemagazineonline.co.uk/2010/10/18/film-review-back-to-the-future-25th-anniversary-theatrical-re-release/)

Would love to hear your thoughts! Such a classic film. :D
Clord
10/18/2010, 12:51 pm
Nice. :)
martymcfly
10/27/2010, 10:26 am
Nice. :)

Thanks! :D
monkeymovies
10/27/2010, 10:28 am
You'll be reviewing the BTTF episodes as they come out, I guess?
:)
Rather Dashing
10/27/2010, 10:34 am
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.
FutureGirl88
10/27/2010, 10:44 am
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) (http://alternativemagazineonline.co.uk/2010/10/18/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!
martymcfly
10/27/2010, 11:02 am
You'll be reviewing the BTTF episodes as they come out, I guess?
:)

Indeed I shall!
martymcfly
10/27/2010, 11:03 am
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 Dashing
10/27/2010, 11:10 am
That you need your eyes checked and to learn something about even the very basics of acceptable image quality in restored physical film?
martymcfly
10/27/2010, 11:21 am
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.
Cyphox
10/27/2010, 11:43 am
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 Dashing
10/27/2010, 11:50 am
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 (http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1779/dnr.png)

Edge Enhancement Halo (http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/922/halom.png)

Crushed blacks (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1902/18304116.png). 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.
Cyphox
10/27/2010, 11:58 am
okay, the face and the black stuff really does look very weird.

damn you, universal!