257 of 269 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Metropolis [Reconstructed & Restored] (Masters of Cinema) Limited Edition Dual Format Steelbook [Blu-ray & DVD]  (Blu-ray)
How do you get a balanced review of a new release when Amazon bundle old reviews of the DVD version (as old as 2001 !!!) with the new ones. CHUMPS. Get your act together Amazon this is a frequent fault.
Tracked by 5 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Nov 2010 21:49:07 GMT
Barney McRubble says:
Fair comment. I'd also like to see us having the ability to post pre-release comments without having to rate an item we haven't seen or heard. (Actually Ihave a a tv broadcast of this version of Metropolis and in terms of content it is a welcome "upgrade" but obviously I can't comment on the technical side of the Masters of Cinema version except to say that they usually take great care to ensure that their releases are of the highest quality.) But yes lets keep comments to the version that is under discussion and leave out the irrelevant discussions on older versions.
Posted on 26 Nov 2010 23:06:48 GMT
It's not a frequent fault, they do it for absolutely *everything* - any review posted to any edition/version/etc of a product is automatically cross-posted to all others. That includes reviews of DVDs attached to Blu-rays, etc; I've even seen comments that indicate that the review of the DVD of a film was attached to the *soundtrack*, for Pete's sake!
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 16:08:41 GMT
B. M. R. Hall says:
It's absurd, I completely agree. I have bought (and not bought things) based on reviews that I later found didn't even apply to the versions of DVDs I've bought. I don't know if any of you have tried to find out the differences between all the George A. Romero Night of the Living Dead DVDs that are out there, but it's bloody impossible. Lots of reviews of different editions, applied in exactly the same manner to every version.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2010 17:18:13 GMT
C. G. Mercer says:
That's not half as bad as buying from a third party seller, expecting to get the edition their ad is attached to, and getting a completely different edition mailed to you. Now that's infuriating.
Posted on 24 Dec 2010 13:16:01 GMT
ray s says:
entirely agree. it also applies to books where reviews of different translations are all bundled together, and it becomes impossible to know exactly what edition is being reviewed. reviews should be clearly marked as belonging to a specific product, otherwise there's no point in having them.
Posted on 24 Feb 2011 20:42:19 GMT
yes time and time again amazon lump together reviews of a product not reviewing the product listed. please be aware amazon reviews are not accurate
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Nov 2011 23:05:56 GMT
absolutely agree on all points...
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Dec 2011 08:35:27 GMT
H. Jones says:
Quite agree. Confuses everybody.
Posted on 8 Jan 2012 12:18:29 GMT
M. A. Bennett says:
Agree that amazon's practice of combining reviews is not ideal, especially when reviews reach the 100's but before each review appears 'This review is from:' and then the exact edition the reviewer has posted it (even then some idiots carelessly talk about the dvd on the 'blu ray' review).
Sometimes I have found something useful from a 'wrong' review that I otherwise would not have bothered to search for.
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Feb 2012 13:49:41 GMT
M. Carter says:
I agree. If people were still buying VHS, they'd mix those reviews in with everything as well.