Quantcast

Urban Legend Blu-ray Review

The News Bot

News Supplying Robot
Reviewed by Brian Day
Though not an out and out fan of the teen horror genre, I can fully understand what the attraction is. Having only seen a small handful from the genre in the past, I don’t have much to compare it too I’m afraid. But out of those I have seen, I would place it firmly between Jeepers Creepers and the first Final destination film – though others would probably disagree.

looking at the Blu-ray package as a whole, we have a perfectly acceptable picture quality that holds up extremely well during the dark scenes – which is the majority of the film really.
The soundtrack is so over the top it has forced me to abandon my usual stance when reviewing of looking for realism and subtlety. Instead, I’ll turn a blind eye to the outrageous LFE channel that kicks into life every time the killer appears onscreen and take this as the norm for the genre…
Where the studio has dropped the ball though is in the extras department. We have a commentary that features the director and a few members of the crew – when the director allows them on, a featurette that looks like someone has found on the cutting room floor and thought it would be a good idea to pad out this disc with, and some online features that don’t work – yet.

The poor extras package has deemed me to dock the overall package a mark – so instead of a healthy eight, I’ll give it an above average seven. Fans of the genre should order this for release day and I believe it will be an upgrade on any SD version previously released. The remainder of you could do worse than rent this for a Friday night horror on the way home from the pub.
Read the full review...
 

Geoff_D

Distinguished Member
Sorry for moaning, but the reviewer's naive wonder at having such a clean source for a 10 (!) year old film needs addressing:

"Firstly, the source print is immaculate. Sony have done well to find this particular print because the film is now ten years old – prints that are available will probably be full of marks tears and scratches – so it’s a good start."

Huh? He makes it sound like they scoured the archives to unearth this pristine gem. First of all, studios will avoid a theatrical print like the plague (unless they have nothing else to use) because they're printed at a density that is inappropriate for film-to-tape transfer, not to mention being several generations removed from the original negative.

If not the O-neg then an interpositive is used for transfer, and given how well protection elements are treated these days it's no surprise that Urban Legend is in good condition. And don't forget the array of digital tools at their disposal; egregious artefacts can be erased/cleaned very efficiently.

Just my two pence.
 

Damoxuk

Novice Member
Heheh like 10 years is like eons ago :D
 
Heheh like 10 years is like eons ago :D
Pop down your local cinema and watch a film that's been playing for a week - then come back and tell me it has no marks on it...;)

Brian (the guy who was impressed with the print quality in the review as I wrote it...):smashin:
 

Geoff_D

Distinguished Member
My point Bri is that studios do not use theatrical prints unless there is nothing - and I mean nothing left to use, and for the reasons that you mention. They're dirty, dusty, beat-up and riddled with identification dots and reel changeover markers, not to mention being a good three or four generations removed from the original negative. As I said, they're also printed at a density that allows for light to be blasted through them in the theatrical environment, and so if they're used for video transfer they have very poor contrast.

So the studios usually use an interpositive for transfer which is struck directly from the negative and never goes anywhere near a projection booth, although if the neg's in good shape then they sometimes use that (like New Line did with their wonderful remastered version of Se7en).

I'm just saying, like. :D
 
My point Bri is that studios do not use theatrical prints unless there is nothing - and I mean nothing left to use, and for the reasons that you mention. They're dirty, dusty, beat-up and riddled with identification dots and reel changeover markers, not to mention being a good three or four generations removed from the original negative. As I said, they're also printed at a density that allows for light to be blasted through them in the theatrical environment, and so if they're used for video transfer they have very poor contrast.

So the studios usually use an interpositive for transfer which is struck directly from the negative and never goes anywhere near a projection booth, although if the neg's in good shape then they sometimes use that (like New Line did with their wonderful remastered version of Se7en).

I'm just saying, like. :D
Geoff - I respect you knowledge and expertise in this manner - but if you have a look back at the review, I never actually wrote the words "theatrical print" - I used (and always do) "source print". I'm fully aware that studios don't use theatrical prints to make the masters for their discs. Some studios are not very particular with the quality of the source they use - however, this seems to have been addressed by a few studios with the latest releases.(The source for the HD DVD of The Mummy for example was filthy and full of marks - the one used for the Blu disc was immaculate)

My comment above was actually the answer to DamoxUK sarcastic remark which brought absolutly nothing to the table...

Now to answer your query on The Mummy review (and maybe you'll have the answer...);)
 
Last edited:

Geoff_D

Distinguished Member
Fair do's Brian. I used to play the semantics game in my reviews, as I always used to say 'source material' and avoided the p word completely. :)
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom