DVD Talk review of 'Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter' (Blu-ray)
11-19-08, 10:20 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Formerly known as "n8boss87".
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
DVD Talk review of 'Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter' (Blu-ray)
I read Adam Tyner's DVD review of Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=35433 and...
I have to wonder if the review is positive as just to not upset the distributor. I loved this movie, it was pure fun, but the video quality for this release is the worst of any blu-ray released. the audio track is equally inept. way to have an unbiased review!!!!!
I have to wonder if the review is positive as just to not upset the distributor. I loved this movie, it was pure fun, but the video quality for this release is the worst of any blu-ray released. the audio track is equally inept. way to have an unbiased review!!!!!
11-19-08, 10:35 PM
#2
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,823
Received 1,882 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Um, it is unbiased. I'd never heard of the movie beforehand (although it turns out a really good friend of mine has a copy of the DVD and helped me out with the comparison), I've never heard of these particular filmmakers, I've never had any contact with this studio/distributor, and I don't really care if they cut DVD Talk off. I'm just trying to be honest. And...c'mon, I write negative reviews all the time. Do a search.
Did you read the review or just look at the star ratings?
I gave the audio a pretty negative review, I thought.
I do feel like the video quality is pretty good for what it is. I've watched quite a few movies shot this way -- I mean, my father made several horror movies for twenty grand a pop on the same model 16mm camera these guys used -- so I feel like I have a pretty good reference for the way these sorts of things traditionally look. I felt that I made it very clear in my review that this isn't traditional Blu-ray eye candy...again, it's just a lot better than I expected for what it is.
I guess we have different approaches to rating. I try to find a balance between "how does this look/sound compared to everything else on the format?" and "how representative is this of the original material?" If a movie was shot for fifty grand on super-grainy 16mm, it seems kind of silly to me to give it a half-star and rant about how terrible it looks when it's never going to realistically look any better. I also try to note, when possible, how much of an improvement a Blu-ray disc is over the original DVD, and this is an enormous step-up.
Did you read the review or just look at the star ratings?
I gave the audio a pretty negative review, I thought.
I do feel like the video quality is pretty good for what it is. I've watched quite a few movies shot this way -- I mean, my father made several horror movies for twenty grand a pop on the same model 16mm camera these guys used -- so I feel like I have a pretty good reference for the way these sorts of things traditionally look. I felt that I made it very clear in my review that this isn't traditional Blu-ray eye candy...again, it's just a lot better than I expected for what it is.
I guess we have different approaches to rating. I try to find a balance between "how does this look/sound compared to everything else on the format?" and "how representative is this of the original material?" If a movie was shot for fifty grand on super-grainy 16mm, it seems kind of silly to me to give it a half-star and rant about how terrible it looks when it's never going to realistically look any better. I also try to note, when possible, how much of an improvement a Blu-ray disc is over the original DVD, and this is an enormous step-up.
