There's a comment in the Leon thread now; not sure if it was already there when you posted. Overall scores are not an average, but a judgement of the package as a whole; that film is a good presentation of what's on the disc, but it's hard to justify more than 8/10 when it's missing the (vastly superior, in my view) theatrical cut that is also present on the US release.But something that does still confuse me (and nobody from avforums has commented on) is how they come up with the 'Overall' score.....
This rightly got an overall score of 9/10, getting 35/40 - which is (8.75/10 - rounded up to 9/10)
But yesterday Leon only got an 8/10 despite getting 37/40 marks (9.25/10 but ended up with 8/10)?!?!
I just don't understand the logic of how they come up with the 'overall' score?!
Yes I doubt i'll invest in this to be honest even if the picture is as good as Cas says. The decision to not include object based soundtrack is a mistake, even if the 5.1 soundtrack is good.
But something that does still confuse me (and nobody from avforums has commented on) is how they come up with the 'Overall' score.....
This rightly got an overall score of 9/10, getting 35/40 - which is (8.75/10 - rounded up to 9/10)
But yesterday Leon only got an 8/10 despite getting 37/40 marks (9.25/10 but ended up with 8/10)?!?!
I just don't understand the logic of how they come up with the 'overall' score?!
I just don't understand the logic of how they come up with the 'overall' score?!
To get from the camera negative to a finished film you've got to turn the (rather flat looking) raw information into the dynamic look the film's colourist chooses, add in any post-production effects and so on. To recreate all that over again at a higher resolution just for the disc is like trying to perform a complete restoration of an old film at best, or practically remaking it if there are digital effects that were originally created at 2k and you don't still have backup files of the render objects and the (possibly 20 years out of date) software that used them.I'm sure this has been answered before but i don't understand why from a 35mm source they can't just go straight to a 4K digital transfer? It might be a dumb question but I've seen 5k original > 2k intermediate > 4k upscale? Why?
I agree in general with what you say, although they did recreate a lot of the special effects in HD for the blu-rays of Star Trek The Next Generation, with stunning results from the episodes I’ve watched of the box set.To get from the camera negative to a finished film you've got to turn the (rather flat looking) raw information into the dynamic look the film's colourist chooses, add in any post-production effects and so on. To recreate all that over again at a higher resolution just for the disc is like trying to perform a complete restoration of an old film at best, or practically remaking it if there are digital effects that were originally created at 2k and you don't still have backup files of the render objects and the (possibly 20 years out of date) software that used them.
That's why if you go and watch things like Babylon 5 or Buffy on streaming your pristine HD remaster suddenly goes all blurry in any shot with digital effects; they were originally created at SD resolution and despite having the old 35mm footage to restore for anything live action they can't re-do the effects work.
I agree in general with what you say, although they did recreate a lot of the special effects in HD for the blu-rays of Star Trek The Next Generation, with stunning results from the episodes I’ve watched of the box set.
Honestly... I appreciate where you're coming from, but as multiple people have answered I feel obligated to shine a slightly different light on your worries - You'll be hard pressed to find a better reviewer than Cas anywhere (and I mean quite literally anywhere) on the planet so question less and appreciate/enjoy more. I promise you'll come away a lot more satisfied.
If reviews are in part subjective, surely reviewing the reviewer is the same?
More seriously, he (at least here) reviews such a narrow range of releases, I'd politely suggest your assertion is a little incredulous.
Not that I have an issue with Cas, he comes across as fairy sensible.
The worst of the Craig films for me. Although, aside from Casino Royale, probably my most watched of the Craig films. The genius of Deakins brings me back.
If reviews are in part subjective, surely reviewing the reviewer is the same?
More seriously, he (at least here) reviews such a narrow range of releases, I'd politely suggest your assertion is a little incredulous.
Not that I have an issue with Cas, he comes across as fairy sensible.
Don't dispute the subjectivity. But I *try* to be as "fairly sensibly objective" as I can notwithstanding the occasional rant about Blofeld's lack of socks and insane backwards planning.
And besides, a reviewer's only as good as the readers who read his reviews, and that's where I've struck gold with this forum; there are a lot of kindred spirits and - even when we don't agree - everybody is generally very nice about it discussion-wise (except when it comes to maths on scores, that really hits an OCD nerve).
My question would be over your definition of 'narrow'. At 1 a day, about 365 days a year, for about 20 years now, I'm doing my best here! I mean, is it possible for one human being to review any more? Without, say, splicing himself with a fly (we know how that turned out) and watching multiple TVs, The Architect-style.
If you're saying I don't review *everything* then you're damn right, I haven't quite achieved machine-like AI sentience yet. But that's cause I'm waiting for Judgment Day, and they keep pushing the date back.
I know it's generally well regarded by mainstream audiences. It seems there's a bit of a disconnect between the Bond obsessives that don't get on with it and everyone else. Similar to how OHMSS is seen by causal viewers as a bit of a joke and Bond fans who regularly put it in their top three. I'm speaking anecdotally and in large generalities of course. I wouldn't say that anyone's opinion is bizarre just because it doesn't fit with the majority.Really? Slightly bizarre as it's very well regarded (rightly so IMO) and not without good reason!
Essential purchase when the release with DTS X/Atmos comes along in 2020
A reviewer needs an audience of similar mind without question, and its evident you have succeeded in that respect here. As for questions of scope, I only see those reviews published here, so if I'm missing something, my bad.
From what I do see here though, I'd make two observations. Covering both TV and movies is a tough task, especially with the avalanche of scripted TV dramas across platforms. Personally I think that does covering neither medium justice, forcing choices or selectivity that will work for some, and not others.
I'm clearly in the latter category, with little interest in the latest conveyor belt Netflix release, which seem to take up a lot of the TV reviews here, nor any interest in superhero franchises.
That all said, I make no judgment about what may or may not be your personal preferences, as I understand you have to cater to your audience. It's very difficult to cover everything, and even larger scale publications, be it the Guardian, Telegraph, Ft or whatever, get nowhere close, and no one could reasonably expect that. In the case of those publications though, their weekly movie reviews cover a broad range of films by genre, language and provenance.
I know it's generally well regarded by mainstream audiences. It seems there's a bit of a disconnect between the Bond obsessives that don't get on with it and everyone else. Similar to how OHMSS is seen by causal viewers as a bit of a joke and Bond fans who regularly put it in their top three. I'm speaking anecdotally and in large generalities of course. I wouldn't say that anyone's opinion is bizarre just because it doesn't fit with the majority.