Quick DVD-Review thread: who wants it?

[tom2681]

We've got a Quick Movie-review thread (What have you seen...)
We've got a DVD Comparisons subforum and database.
But we don't have a Quick DVD-Review thread.

The concept is simple:
I've made a sticky thread (offline at the moment) called "The Quick DVD-Review thread".
The first post will contain a BnB DVD-Review database that will be regularly updated, and every subsequent post will contain one quick DVD-Review.

Each review must meet some basic requirements, of course:
You must mention the movie title, the format (NTSC/PAL), the region and the company that's distributing the DVD, running time, aspect ratio, anamorphism, video quality, list of audio tracks and quality, subtitles and extras.

No need to talk about the film itself. No need to post screencaps. No need to go into too much detail.
Make sure it contains more info than the average DragonsDenUK DVD Review ( https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... UKTest.png ), but there's no need to write an encyclopedia about it either.

All I'm asking is that you post a quick DVD-Review in the thread every once in a while.

Please get voting.
Thanks.

[Shingster]

The problem with this is that, while there are members who know how to rate a video transfer and are quite insightful on the subject, there are other members who haven't got the slightest clue what constitutes "good audio and video" - but think they actually do. I know many members of these boards think anyone can just rate a DVD transfer effectively because it's purely about observation, but it's not! It's more like a science, and one you have to teach yourself.

As long as you do keep the video comments absolutely basic, then maybe it'd work.

[bradavon]

To add to what Shingster said members have a differing opinion on what they classify as good. It's well known what I consider great many would not. I don't even spot (or care about) many faults DVDs I have apparently have.

Personally speaking I'm not the best person to be commenting in such a thread because as long as it ticks the main points (anamorphic, not seriously cropped, original audio etc...) I'm usually happy.

That said I'll certainly give it a try and keep my comments basic. I think in theory it's a good one as personally I find some reviews give too much info for my tastes when all I want to know is if there any gaping flaws.

It's worth a try.

p.s - Shingster could you vote please

[tom2681]

I agree with you, Shingster. But:
I'd rather read a biased opinion than no opinion at all.

+ Most review sites can't be trusted.
+ Most of the asian DVDs we're interested in are never reviewed anywhere.

If at least 3 people agree to participate (even just occasionally), then I'll do it.

[HungFist]

Shing has a point, personally I never trust a review unless I know the reviewer. Here I pretty much know who gives value to what, so I wouldn't see it as a problem.

I however do think that screencaps would be a good idea.

[tom2681]

This is what I had in mind:

-----

My Tutor Friend (Korea - 2003) - R3HK Edko
113:26 Mins (NTSC)
1.85:1 Interlaced Anamorphic transfer.

The video:
A typical Edko transfer. Interlaced, but anamorphic and reasonably sharp, with nicely saturated colours.
There's some visible print damage, though. White specks and scratches can be seen in every single shot, but thankfully it's not distracting.
Edge-enhancement is kept to a minimum.
Overall, a solid effort. Too bad it's not progressive.

The sound:
You've got 3 flavours to choose from:
- half-rate DTS 6.1 ES Korean track.
- DDEX 5.1 Korean track.
- DDEX 5.1 Cantonese dub.

I only tried the Korean DTS track. The music might be a bit too loud compared to the dialogue and the foley effects, but everything sounds very clear and there are no noticeable A/V sync issues.
There is a slight drop early in the film, which I assume is just a poorly-placed layer break.

The subtitles:
If the Edko release has an Achille's heel, it must be the subs.
They are easy to read and easy to follow, and don't suffer from any major grammatical or spelling errors.
The problem is that they're dubtitles.
The subtitles on this release are based on the cantonese dub, which means that pretty much every line is either inaccurate or out of sync with the korean track.
The problem is both noticeable and irritating, especially since one important plot point is completely mistranslated.

The extras:
- 01.53: Trailer for My Tutor Friend (subtitled both in english and chinese).
- 03.06: A short featurette (chinese subs only).
- 07.34: Interview with the director (removable chinese subs only).
- 03.00: Interview with Kim Ha-Neul (removable chinese subs only).
- 00.25: Two cantonese TV Spots.
- 01.40: Trailer for Crazy First Love (subtitled both in english and chinese).

-----

This is what a quick DVD review should look like IMO (roughly).
I think it would be a good idea to have an entire thread filled with this kind of information.

[bradavon]

Personally I don't always know if they're dubtitles without checking through the dub too. I cannot notice if it's interlaced too, unless I check it on my computer.

Personally I'd just list a basic list of the extras as to most they're not all that important. If any are particularly maybe say more. I wouldn't bother to list the length of them.

I however do think that screencaps would be a good idea.

Personally I don't or at least not in the same thread. Link off to a capture thread if you feel the need to include high res. captures. Including them with the review in one thread would make it unreadable.

p.s - It's worth starting one Tom. It may take a wee while to get going properly though.

[EvaUnit02]

They're just guidelines Brad, not rules. If someone doesn't want eg talk about the quality of the dub, etc then they can. I seriously doubt Tom would be fascist about a posting template.

[tom2681]

Yeah, that's why I said "Should look like IMO (Roughly)".
You guys do whatever you want.

As long as you've got the important stuff covered, I don't care about the rest.

3 people are interested, I see.
Good enough. The new sticky will make its appearance tomorrow.

[bradavon]

They're just guidelines Brad, not rules.

I know. Hence why I said "personally".

[EvaUnit02]

This is why we can't have nice things:-

Personally I don't have an aversion at all but some of these old films have so much grain it's just ridiculous. If that can be lessened I'm all for it.

For the good of some random lurker coming in from Google or whatever. Please refrain from sharing your normal ignorance/warped opinion, we don't people to mistake those as "wisdom from a knowledgeable enthusiast". Keep it very basic, thanks.

[bradavon]

The day you and others stop posting patronising comments I'll stop posting my wisdom and knowledge!

[gasteropod]

Haha

[thelostdragon]

@Tom
Shouldn't "My Tutor Friend" be listed unter "M"? You losted it under "T". I think we should only use the ifrst letter of the second word, if the first word in the title is "The" or "A".

[tom2681]

Wanna vote on it ?
I always put small useless words like "The, a, on, his, her, my" in the same bag and ignore them.

[bradavon]

I think LD is spot on. The and A are very common but My isn't and thus can be under My. His or Her certainly should go under H. They're proper words, if you get my drift.

It definitely pisses me off when review sites list titles with The at the start under T.

p.s - Tom are you going to update the first post when new review are written?

[tom2681]

Okee-doke.
*updating*

How long before someone tells me that The 5th Element should be under "F" ?

[bradavon]

How long before someone tells me that The 5th Element should be under "F" ?

I was literally about to post that

It's clearly The Fifth Element, just look at the cover

p.s - I'll probably regret saying this but I just have to say it Tom. For someone who knows English so well you should know there is no space before a question mark

I've noticed you always add a space (so presumably think it's correct?). Stop it

[the68monkey]

Wanna vote on it ?
I always put small useless words like "The, a, on, his, her, my" in the same bag and ignore them.

If you want the skinny on grammar and classification, you only drop articles when filing or indexing (articles = a, an, the ) Any other "little" word, no matter how small, remains since it affects the meaning (infinitives, prepositions, possessive pronouns, etc.)

Your Friendly English Grammar Geek



P.S. For some more useless trivia, if you were creating a filing system of company names for accounting purposes, you would keep the articles, since they are part of the registered company name. Ex: The Burger Shack would be filed under "T." Maddening, isn't it?

[bradavon]

If you want the skinny on grammar and classification, you only drop articles when filing or indexing (articles = a, an, the ) Any other "little" word, no matter how small, remains since it affects the meaning (infinitives, prepositions, possessive pronouns, etc.)

Well put. That's what I meant but didn't explain myself well.

P.S. For some more useless trivia, if you were creating a filing system of company names for accounting purposes, you would keep the articles, since they are part of the registered company name. Ex: The Burger Shack would be filed under "T." Maddening, isn't it?

Personally I wouldn't do that as it always creates a huge list of names all under T.

[thelostdragon]

P.S. For some more useless trivia, if you were creating a filing system of company names for accounting purposes, you would keep the articles, since they are part of the registered company name. Ex: The Burger Shack would be filed under "T." Maddening, isn't it?

Personally I wouldn't do that as it always creates a huge list of names all under T.

Which are all alphabetically sorted as well. So I see no problem there.

[bradavon]

It's just a differing opinion.

Yes they'd be alphabetically ordered but The is a minor word if you will and not part of the main name of the company. If I was looking for The Burger Shack I certainly wouldn't look under T.