Dark City Blu-ray

[j_garcia]

I usually only write up a quick review of movies that I think that people might not otherwise give a look. This is an older film that didn't do so well in the box office, but it is still a fun flick. To me it has an interesting and well done story with some nice visuals. There are elements of other films, while it is clear that others following it took some influence from it, not the least of which was The Matrix (there are some major parallels in the first 1/3 of the movie). The BD has an excellent transfer, with amazing looking skin tones and a lot of detail despite the film's near constant darkness (thus the name...). It starts off as a murder/amnesia mystery that quickly turns into something quite a bit different and unexpected. Strange things are going on and the story reveals itself at a decent pace - enough to keep the story going without giving it away. This is the director's cut, but to be honest, I couldn't really tell much of a difference from the theatrcial cut. Some of the digital effects are a bit dated, though they don't really detract from an otherwise visually impressive presentation. The sets, the lighting and the cinematography give it an interesting look and feel.

Fans should pick this one up. The curious should give it a rent

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Dark city is a great movie (one of my favorites.) I have no idea how much difference Blu-ray would make, having only seen the standard DVD.

 

[j_garcia]

I have the SD and this is a pretty big upgrade from it. It is one of my faves also.

 

[jostenmeat]

Great to hear that PQ passed with flying colors, J. That was my primary concern with this title, as I already knew I liked the content.

Thanks for the review. Again.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

One of my favorites as well. I ordered the BD copy from Wal-Mart, but have not gotten it yet.

How was the Sound Quality?

 

[j_garcia]

Sound quality is good through most of it though when you hit the big sequences towards the end I think it was showing its age a bit in that the mix has a bit too much going on to sound precise compared to the rest of the film which is somewhat quiet and the sound directionality is very good. Overall, surround use is good, and LFE has vastly been improved over the previous DVD.

 

[skizzerflake]

Dark City is a favorite of mine, with its noir-twilight zone plot. I always thought it was too cerebral to be a big hit, but a great flick for the thoughtful. I have to admit though that it doesn't seem like a great Blue Ray demo because it's so dark and deliberately muddy looking.

 

[j_garcia]

Not really a demo disc, however it does look very good now compared to the SD version. It is not so muddy anymore. Intentionally dark yes, but muddy no.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For the PQ, the major complaint I've heard is that the picture looks "too smooth" without a hint of film grain (like Pans Labyrinth).

What's wrong with that? I prefer my picture to look smooth as long as it's still nice, detailed, and sharp. Who likes picture grain anyway?

For SQ, the major complaint I've heard is the Center channel dialogues being a little weak at times.

Guess I'll just have to turn up the Center channel volume knob a little.

 

[jostenmeat]

For the PQ, the major complaint I've heard is that the picture looks "too smooth" without a hint of film grain (like Pans Labyrinth).

This is what I said at the New PQ thread at AVS:

I have only seen the US version. Pan's is the most disappointing BD movie purchase I might have made. The faces just look terrible. I daresay the worst looking faces out of my entire collection. At moments, sometimes the cheeks of the girl remind me of some topographical map or something. Bland whitish blotch, surrounded by a less whitish ring, so forth. I was really disappointed because I enjoyed this movie a lot.

However, I must say that sometimes my greatest disappointments come when my expectations are highest. *sigh*

What's wrong with that? I prefer my picture to look smooth as long as it's still nice, detailed, and sharp. Who likes picture grain anyway?

It looks completely gross. Let alone unrealistic. The grain does get you more detail. Some movies that I think of with excellent detail, but with a lot of pronounced grain (to me), are Casino Royale and POTC II & III.

Some people think DNR exists because everyone wants their movies to look like a Pixar cartoon. After all, they wouldn't make the movies WORSE unless they thought we WANTED it. *shrugs* On one hand, the die hard grain enthusiasts wish that there was zero DNR, and left the choice of how much to add to the consumer with outboard devices. OTOH, others think that a touch of it here and there can be an acceptable compromise. None of the videophiles I respect like a lot of it.

Pan's Labyrinth has the worst DNR of faces that I've ever seen. What a shame. I basically lose respect for the PQ opinion of those who give this movie top marks in PQ. Just speaking perhaps a bit too candidly.

However, thanks for giving me the impetus to find out how much DNR was used before I might possibly purchase Dark City.

 

[j_garcia]

Have you seen the SD version of Pan's? It looks almost identical to the BD IMO, which means some of that may have actually been in the print itself.

I do think Dark City has a bit of a soft look to it, but I think it fits perfectly with the film to be honest. It is almost surreal, kind of like a dream state. It isn't to the point where it detracts from the look of the sets or people at all to me.

 

[jostenmeat]

Have you seen the SD version of Pan's? It looks almost identical to the BD IMO, which means some of that may have actually been in the print itself.

Yes. I think this title and X-Men3 are the only duplicates I have in the hi-def collection. Its been a long time since Ive seen the DVD though, but I think it actually might have looked better. I should look to see, but I sort of don't care...

I do think Dark City has a bit of a soft look to it, but I think it fits perfectly with the film to be honest. It is almost surreal, kind of like a dream state. It isn't to the point where it detracts from the look of the sets or people at all to me.

Cool. As long as its in line with the intention of the film makers, director, etc. I simply cannot and will not believe that the grossly excessive DNR of Pan's represents the director's intentions.

It was one of very earliest movies I threw on when I setup my PJ. I thought the PJ was severely mis-calibrated at first. I thought it was insane white crush. Then I threw on some other movies....

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is what I said at the New PQ thread at AVS:

I have only seen the US version. Pan's is the most disappointing BD movie purchase I might have made. The faces just look terrible. I daresay the worst looking faces out of my entire collection. At moments, sometimes the cheeks of the girl remind me of some topographical map or something. Bland whitish blotch, surrounded by a less whitish ring, so forth. I was really disappointed because I enjoyed this movie a lot.

However, I must say that sometimes my greatest disappointments come when my expectations are highest. *sigh*



It looks completely gross. Let alone unrealistic. The grain does get you more detail. Some movies that I think of with excellent detail, but with a lot of pronounced grain (to me), are Casino Royale and POTC II & III.

Some people think DNR exists because everyone wants their movies to look like a Pixar cartoon. After all, they wouldn't make the movies WORSE unless they thought we WANTED it. *shrugs* On one hand, the die hard grain enthusiasts wish that there was zero DNR, and left the choice of how much to add to the consumer with outboard devices. OTOH, others think that a touch of it here and there can be an acceptable compromise. None of the videophiles I respect like a lot of it.

Pan's Labyrinth has the worst DNR of faces that I've ever seen. What a shame. I basically lose respect for the PQ opinion of those who give this movie top marks in PQ. Just speaking perhaps a bit too candidly.

However, thanks for giving me the impetus to find out how much DNR was used before I might possibly purchase Dark City.

Hmmm. To me, as long as it does not look like "Beowulf", I'm okay.
"Beowulf" was scary looking to me -- I thought I was seeing DEAD people.

So a little bit of grain is good, huh?

I suppose some picture grain gives the picture a more "realistic" and "live" film atmosphere.

I did not have any issues at all with Pan's Labyrinth. Maybe I should go back and rewatch it to see what's up with that.

Maybe I'm just not a hardcore "Videophile".

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

As long as its in line with the intention of the film makers, director, etc.

Remember the movie "300" and how much grain was in that movie?

And they said it was the "director's intention"?

Remember "Schindler's List" and how it was in Black & White?

I couldn't care less about the director's intention.

All I want is beautiful, vibrant looking colors with nice details and smooth looking film without grain --- as long as it does not look like a cartoon -- as long as it does not look like "Beowulf".

 

[itschris]

300 looks almost cartoonish.

Remember the movie "300" and how much grain was in that movie?

And they said it was the "director's intention"?

Remember "Schindler's List" and how it was in Black & White?

I couldn't care less about the director's intention.

All I want is beautiful, vibrant looking colors with nice details and smooth looking film without grain --- as long as it does not look like a cartoon -- as long as it does not look like "Beowulf".

 

[j_garcia]

It was one of very earliest movies I threw on when I setup my PJ. I thought the PJ was severely mis-calibrated at first. I thought it was insane white crush. Then I threw on some other movies....

I compared Pan's back to back with the SD on both my 980 and the PS3 upscaled and I was pretty disappointed as I was hoping for a better looking BD. I thought the difference wasn't that significant, but the PQ was never that great for this film. I saw it in the theater and felt that the PQ was already suffering a bit.

 

[jostenmeat]

Remember the movie "300" and how much grain was in that movie?

And they said it was the "director's intention"?

Yep, but it looks a whole lot better than Pan's. As for intended EXTRA grain, I think of Band of Brothers. I thought the DVD had poor PQ, and I hear very mixed things about the HD-DVD, even if a definite improvement. I temper my hopes for the BD release to come out this year, especially for the higher cost.

Also, Surf's Up the cartoon has added grain to make it look like a documentary. Very successful IMO.

I couldn't care less about the director's intention.

Fair enough, but some of us do. What would be truly fair is just to have you process the video to your own tastes.

All I want is beautiful, vibrant looking colors with nice details and smooth looking film without grain --- as long as it does not look like a cartoon -- as long as it does not look like "Beowulf".

I thought Beowulf looked tremendous. Anyways, its still animation. Grain is part of the deal with live action, just comes with the territory of more detail. Yeah sometimes I agree I might pay too much attn to it, and even be slightly distracted. As aforementioned, I really think of Casino Royale. But if you made Bond all pasty-faced in order to remove grain, you will undoubtedly be getting LESS detail.

Whether or not the director wants to give you less detail or not, that's what happens. Whether you agree or not.

Do you have an HD-DVD player? I have to see it again, but I was amazed at how detailed, yet smooth, the faces were in Darkman. The color palette is smaller, I believe due to the common effects/color-stock used at the time period. Artificial, in other words. I'm under the impression that the PQ can be such because they might have used "real" film at the time. Since then, digital cameras don't work/look as good, or so I've been told. I'm talking about stuff over my head... Real film costs too much. Digital is much, much, much cheaper.

I compared Pan's back to back with the SD on both my 980 and the PS3 upscaled and I was pretty disappointed as I was hoping for a better looking BD. I thought the difference wasn't that significant, but the PQ was never that great for this film. I saw it in the theater and felt that the PQ was already suffering a bit.

Yeah. I like Del Toro's films from what I've seen. They should do him more justice. I really had to make sure Orphanage looked good before buying, due to my terrible experience with Pan's. Too bad about Cronos though. Otherwise I would own it already.

BaH!

 

[j_garcia]

The Orphanage looked better than Pan's for sure, though the picture was still not top teir (at least a little inconsistent). Everyone seems up in arms about 300, but I wasn't bothered by any grain at all, and it did seem to be clear that it was intentional, right along with the limited color palette.

 

[jostenmeat]

ADTG, I thought you might be interested in this thread. Then again, you might hate it!!

Film Grain Allowed - The Beauty Of Film - Nominations Required

I haven't visited this thread in forever, but I see now at the bottom of the list under "Major Issues With Transfer To Blu Ray - Not Recommended For Viewing" is Pan's Labyrinth.

I wonder if the higher placement in the PQ thread is due to reviews on the European version. Because the US version is the most disappointing BD movie purchase I've made yet. IMO.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

300 looks almost cartoonish.

Yeah, I have to agree with you there.

A cartoon with lots of grain.

But I still liked it.