Top critical review
10 people found this helpful
Seven Deaths in The Eyes of a DNR Filter --> The Reviews From The Bigscreen Series
on 14 March 2017
Title: SEVEN DEATHS IN THE CATS EYE (1973)
Label: 88 FILMS
Tranfer by: Italy (?)
Aspect Ratio: 2.35 : 1
88 FILMS released a BD set of the atmospheric SEVEN DEATHS IN THE CATS EYE. Newly transferred from the original camera negative. The Movie is an interesting mixture from gothic tales, Agatha Christie like story and some elements from Gialli. The visual style tends towards the ROGER CORMAN flicks starring VINCENT PRICE. There is a nice and relaxed old-school feel to it. Camera work, lightning, atmosphere, costumes, actors and sets are satisfactory. Give it a try.
No Grain Baby, No Gain / The Transfer:
So fancy the movie itself is set in scene so bad is the transfer done. There is absolutely no depth and texture to it and the figures tend to be so smooth as an eel. You guessed it. Heavy DNR filtering has been applied here. As a result you have a loss on every and each side: contrasts are so low. Level of Detail: nope. Colors seem to be false the darker the segments are. This transfer is dead. Its absolutely no fun to watch an a big screen. On the contrary it is downright stressfull because nearly the whole movie is set in place in dark environments. Sorry. No stars here. This is 2017!
Cut and Run:
The scanned source material is integral. NO noticeable inserts from different sources have been applied. I find this to be so damn important for a perfect filmic enjoyment. The movie is uncut.
Fans, collectors and people with bigscreens or projectors should think twice. If you already own a relatively well done release like the BLUE UNDERGROUND DVD I cant recommend an update at this point. What a pity. I think this movie and our home cinema systems including our cinematic trained eyes deserve better treatment.
My ratings refer exclusively to technical aspects of BD sets. The more filmic / photographic a movie looks and feels via bigscreen projections and the more authentic to its camera negative (or other sources) the movie is scanned and digitally treated afterwards, the higher the ratings will be.
I do not rate movies at all. I just watch them and I think of them as artificial pieces of work where many efforts have been taken (including complex postproduction) to accomplish a vision of whatsoever kind. No movie ever shot has earned a 1 star rating on AMAZON or a 1 point rating on IMDB. Anyway, I could rate them because I have studied in private many publications about making films, their psychological impact, and the subject violence on film. And because I am a hobby photographer for years now I know much about frame compositions, color composition and different styles and so on. I am interested in the arts in general. I am also a hobby musician and sound designer with a little studio. So I even could rate the filmical scores. But hell...why should I? Things are what they are and nothing more or less. I like to think beyond mind constructed terms like good and bad. So called "objectivity" becomes fast diluted by personal preferences which results in comments of personal taste. And that should not be the base for a rating-scale which claims to be universal. When it comes to technical aspects thats a different kind of thing. DNR, edge enhancement or block noise and such things are obvious on big screens and we can speak of objectivity and measurability.
All about Ev(m)e:
I am a collector of films for about 27 Years, own about 3.000 films (would be far more, but I often sort out transfers I dont like) and watch them in a home-cinema room via bigscreen projection. I am also a hobby musician and photographer with some experience scanning camera negatives in high definitions. I am fascinated by films from reels since I am a kid and spent hours for hours in cinemas and visiting film festivals.