Quote:
Originally Posted by mentasm I appreciate that the film is 70 years old, but I don't think that it's a 9/10 transfer. |
It is in my opinion. Got my set a few weeks ago and it looks lush, almost like seeing it for the first time. Bad news is the cheap sets and backdrops stand out like a sore thumb and as it was shot on three strip its never been the sharpest looking image (along with lots of soft focus), but in terms of seeing it as it should be seen, this is as close as possible without a time machine. Plus, the technicians have to be complemented in keeping the grain and only cleaning up what needed removing, checking each frame by eye to make sure it was right.
It's cheesy, hocky and as Steve suggests a little childish with no real adult hooks, but as a piece of genuine cinema history and lore, its up there with the rest of the classics. And I have always had a soft spot for it since childhood viewing on the telly.
Oh and the 6 hour documentary on MGM (I'm two hours in) is worth the money alone if you love your movie history!