Customer Discussions > high definition discussion forum

Blurays to AVOID!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 387 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Dec 2010 15:14:37 GMT
Mr. Ml Mills says:
Thought it might be a good idea to make a list of the films that needn't have been transfered to bluray for those maybe new to the format who are unaware that some blurays SUCK!

I'll start with the obvious "28 days later" by Danny Boyle.

For anyone familiar with the film, you will know that Danny decided to shoot it practically with camcorders? so the brunt of the film (Picture quality wise) is appalling! Maybe the worst i've seen?? Given it was the directors decision to shoot the film this way i suppose the bluray is an accurate representation of how this film should look but WOW.. its bad! made worse by the fact that at the end Danny decided to shoot the last 5 mins in 35mm??? meaning after putting up with the abysmal transfer for the first 100mins and getting used to it, he then, to insult to injury, shows us how good it could have looked had he shot the whole thing on 35mm! Why Danny, Why? personally i think it was a big mistake to shoot this film, the first 100mins anyway, on camcorders, it doesn't add to the experience at all! it doesn't even make sense in a blair witch or cloverfield way?

I'll stop ranting.... Add your Bluray disappointments below...

Oh and Happy Christmas :)

Posted on 19 Dec 2010 18:26:27 GMT
Shazzerman says:
Robocop - although this may be a source problem.
It's A Wonderful Life - a shame really - 'cause I would love a decent blu-ray of this to watch over the holidays - but they DNR-ed the s**t out of this classic.

Posted on 19 Dec 2010 18:49:31 GMT
J.Yasimoto says:
Dollars trilogy. Much as I love these films, I can't see much improvement over the DVD release.

Posted on 19 Dec 2010 18:55:44 GMT
J. Martin says:
I would have thought the obvious was Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition.
It was DNR-ed to death and I'm really worried now that this will be the only Blu-ray we'll ever have of Predator, bar the 2008 version.:-(

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Dec 2010 00:03:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Dec 2010 00:04:51 GMT
Catmandoo says:
"Mr. Ml Mills says:
Thought it might be a good idea to make a list of the films that needn't have been transfered to bluray for those maybe new to the format who are unaware that some blurays SUCK! ..."

Good idea! This thread could become a very useful reference point for Blu-ray newbies like me, who would value users' opinions on the comparative video and audio quality the Blu-ray versions achieve.

Posted on 20 Dec 2010 10:18:22 GMT
Clint Bett says:
the dirty harry collection
there's no reason to buy on dvd rather than blu ray, they both look the same

Posted on 20 Dec 2010 18:11:12 GMT
Wayne says:
^^^^talking crap about the dirty Harry boxset above^^^

This thread is a good idea but it's gonna be subject to so much opinion. Take the comment above regarding dirty Harry. I have all 5 films and quite frankly they are outstanding. Very good picture quality but that's not the be all and end all of blu ray. HD sound is also a massive consideration and dirty harry's remixed HD audio is superb.

It all comes down to what your set up is aswell. People will have different tv sets, different audio set ups etc. Please think before you rush in to slag off a blu ray.

Posted on 20 Dec 2010 18:44:41 GMT
I think my only outstandingly poor effort is 'House of flying daggers'. A film that's crying out to look great in HD but is an epic fail.

But truth be told, there's probably no Blu-rays to avoid (on quality grounds). For instance if you don't own 'House of flying daggers' on DVD and the price is close enough to the DVD, still buy the BD.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Dec 2010 19:09:37 GMT
Christian says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 20 Dec 2010 21:27:13 GMT
AK-87 says:
Equilibrium is by far the worst!!

Posted on 20 Dec 2010 21:40:34 GMT
J Tone says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Dec 2010 09:16:39 GMT
AK-87 says:
Hmmm, there's a lot of flaws in what you have written. It sounds like you like to pigeon hole things. (Let's shoot this mother down one by one:

-'Too Old For Real Blu=ray Quality Pictures'... Do you know what you mean by that, matey? I fear that you have fallen into the trap of presuming that the newer the film, the more 'real' the Blu-ray presentation. For examples which shoot down your theory, see: Zulu [Blu-ray] [1964] ,The Shining [Blu-ray] [1980] , Blade Runner: The Final Cut [Blu-ray] [1982] . All of which you will find on EVERY online must own Blu-ray guide.

-'Lacking any content that Blu-ray adds value to (i.e comedy/drama..)... Well now that's just a matter of personal interest. Nobody says that Blu-ray was specifically designed for action films. If you want to see stunning drama or comedy titles which benefit hugely from Blu-ray and make good show off discs, see: Wallander - Series 1-2 [Blu-ray] [2008] , The Prestige [Blu-ray] [2006] , Across the Universe [Blu-ray] [2007] . These titles benefit from subtle textures and hues which are mesmerizing at time. Always Remember, you don't have to be a Michael Bay Blu to be Jaw-Dropping. I particularly recommend Wallander (which won the Best Photography BAFTA.) some of the visual sequences are nothing short of art.

Posted on 21 Dec 2010 17:00:54 GMT
Bobby says:
Some blu rays are not particularly bad, it's just that they don't improve much on the DVD version - example First Blood, The Score. You'll find that a lot of the 5-7 bargain Blu Rays are the ones that fall into this category. The Godfathers are also ones to avoid.

28 Weeks later is definitely the worst Blu Ray i've every watched. shocking!

As for the comment above about old films not worth bothering with - total rubbish! The Blu Rays I own of The Thing, The Untouchables and 2001 are among the best i've seen.

Personally I would say The Hurt Locker, District 9, Moon, The Harry Potters, Inception and Saving Private Ryan are among some of the best!

Posted on 21 Dec 2010 17:59:22 GMT
Mr. Mj Clark says:
i`d have to say Bram Stokers Dracula.. Magical movie but the tranfer has had no restoration at all. Really lazy considering it was such a massive movie.

Posted on 21 Dec 2010 18:07:24 GMT
The Ganges. Most of the film was shot in SD rather than HD, and they have a cheek calling it a blu-ray frankly. A complete waste of money if you're looking for something in excellent visual quality.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Dec 2010 19:38:40 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Dec 2010 19:39:31 GMT
The godfathers are definatly ones to NOT avoid they are brilliant on blu ray and have never looked better. Its easy to compare them to modern films and think they dont look good but for the age of the films they look miles better the they did on dvd check out this review if you dont believe me.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Godfather-Collection-Blu-ray/1003/#Review

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Dec 2010 20:23:30 GMT
J.Yasimoto says:
I'd have to disagree with you there. Now, I'll admit that The Godfather has never looked better, but the point is that the DVDs (the remastered ones) also look fantastic. Is it worth the premium you pay for BluRay for just a small increase in quality? I would say no. The Godfather is hardly a BluRay reference film. But many fans will happily pay the premium for the best product available and good luck to them.

Which brings me to a second point. The DVD format has recently upped its game. Films like the restored James Bonds are superb on BluRay. But all this remastering work also makes for a decent DVD release. Some DVDs (like the Bonds) are as good as some of the worst BluRays.

So if you have to have the best, BluRay is your only option. But there are also some great DVD bargains out there.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Dec 2010 20:53:40 GMT
I wouldn't really call 17.99 for the whole trilogy a premium! it's not all about visuals the sound track is much better than the DVD versions as well.

Posted on 21 Dec 2010 23:34:19 GMT
D. Pybus says:
Not to do with the Video quality, but American History X has the worst sound possible. ALL voice acting comes from the right speakers, and background noise from the left. It's just awful to listen to.

Posted on 21 Dec 2010 23:35:21 GMT
MICHAELM says:
friday the 13th part 3 blu ray is easily the worst blu ray transfer available.the picture is very grainy and there is considerable print damage throughout the whole film,plus the picture keeps going blurred.this is one to avoid!!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Dec 2010 23:42:20 GMT
AK-87 says:
Ms. R.C. Armstrong, even if Ganges was shot in 'SD' (I assume you mean shot on film rather than digital) it doesn't mean that is the reason for any poor transfer to high definition.

The Dark Knight was shot on film and many people regard that as one of the best Blu-ray visual presentations.

Posted on 22 Dec 2010 10:01:06 GMT
The green zone. Great film but should have bought it on dvd. Way too much grain in the night scenes.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Dec 2010 10:11:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Dec 2010 10:11:43 GMT
but then you wouldn't get the DTS HD master audio 5.1 sound track which quite frankly is immense..!!! grain put aside (as I'm not starting a grain debate) the detail is brilliant you wouldn't see that on a DVD version..

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Dec 2010 10:17:50 GMT
V. Ago says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Dec 2010 10:18:30 GMT
V. Ago says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the high definition discussion forum

 

This discussion

Participants:  152
Total posts:  387
Initial post:  19 Dec 2010
Latest post:  2 Jul 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 23 customers

Search Customer Discussions