'Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Luke has reviewed 'Warrior.' He really enjoyed the movie, but he says this Blu-ray has an almost fatal video flaw. Read on for all the details.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6084/warrior.html

[Palmer]

Loved this movie in the cinema. And to be honest, it looked like crap there too, so it seems, at least, the BD is accurate. Must have been 16mm.

[hairlesswookiee]

Definitely one of my favorite movies of this year. Lots of great talent in this movie and it doesn't fail to deliver the fighting that drew people to watch it. I just wish I could get big like Tom Hardy.

[XL83]

Day one buy. This video review contradicts all the other impressions I've read. /shrug

[Luke Hickman]

Day one buy. This video review contradicts all the other impressions I've read. /shrug

Pop it in. From the opening shot, you'll immediately notice exactly what I'm talking about. If it contradicts other reviews, it's only because I'll give it to you like it is ;-)

[XL83]

Pop it in. From the opening shot, you'll immediately notice exactly what I'm talking about. If it contradicts other reviews, it's only because I'll give it to you like it is ;-)

You're a good writer, but I haven't read enough reviews from you yet to know if I trust your eyes. A 2.5/5 is something that would keep me from buying some of my favorite movies and get me on a soapbox. Say American Beauty, looking the way it does.

This one looked grainy, gritty, handheld in the theatres, so I probably won't be too disappointed.

[canuck2]

For what it's worth, I watched the Blu last night and thought the video presentation was really good. It honours the theatrical presentation which did have a gritty indie feel.

[Luke Hickman]

For what it's worth, I watched the Blu last night and thought the video presentation was really good. It honours the theatrical presentation which did have a gritty indie feel.

Was the noise not as annoying and distracting to you as it was to me?

[Roger Mathus]

I found the video very film like. Yes, there is some grain but it is better (IMHO) to not filter the grain at the expense of sharpness. The look and feel of the image on this disc fits the film. The noise observed was not at all annoying or distracting to me and I did not see it thru out the film. I watched on 8 ft screen using Marantz V-15 projector and OPPO-93 player.

Review at BluRay.com gives the image a 4.5. My personal evaluation is 4.0.

It is hard to understand Luke's low evaluation. A 2.5 makes it sound like it is un-watchable....I did not find this the case. I did not see this in the theater but my guess is that the Blu-Ray transfer is true to the intended image.

[Luke Hickman]

It is hard to understand Luke's low evaluation. A 2.5 makes it sound like it is un-watchable....I did not find this the case. I did not see this in the theater but my guess is that the Blu-Ray transfer is true to the intended image.

Honestly, the noise was so distracting to me that it really bothered me. Had it appeared as simple film grain (which I like), that would be one thing, but inconsistently popping up from shot to shot really did make this a borderline unwatchable experience for me - and I love this movie!

[XL83]

Honestly, the noise was so distracting to me that it really bothered me. Had it appeared as simple film grain (which I like), that would be one thing, but inconsistently popping up from shot to shot really did make this a borderline unwatchable experience for me - and I love this movie!

I don't doubt your honesty or integrity at all, but is it possible that it was something to do with your equipment? Did you use something for reference to make sure that other ref. BD looked as it always has? Probably a dumb question, you likely go through an extensive process to ensure accuracy, but it does seem strange when the other impressions I've read of it haven't made an issue out of it.

Did you see the film in the theatre? It has a certain grainy kind of noisy quality and varies wildly between different scenes, it seems very indie like say, The Wrestler. I am about to pop the movie in and will update the thread with my impressions compared to the theatrical experience, because I vividly remember the theatre experience this summer.

[XL83]

Just watched again and WOW, probably my favorite movie of 2011, above Drive, Moneyball, Hugo, everything else I've seen. I still need to see The Descendants, Tree of Life and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but out of the movies I have seen, this movie is the best. It will be overlooked at award time because the story is "cliche" and the general public still has a negative opinion about MMA, but in my opinion the performances, direction, dialogue, pacing etc. elevate this one above everything else. It will be totally snubbed and some trite shit like The Help will clean up, the big names like Brad Pitt and George Clooney will be fighting for Best Actor and Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton won't even get a nom. Nick Nolte had better win Best Supporting though, I don't even see how it's close. Anyway...

The PQ, to me, looks identical to the theatrical presentation. I see the "noise" Luke is talking about, ie in the very first scenes in Paddy Conlan's apartment, but it doesn't look like some digital artifact or a product of a bad encode or transfer. It just looks like really heavy film grain. It may not have the best cinematography out there, but as far as I'm concerned it 100% accurately represents the way the film looked in the theater. If pressed to grade it I'd give it a 4/5. No higher, but not really any lower either.

If you liked the movie in the theater, pick it up on BD. Just my $0.02 but I'm totally satisfied with it. If it was bad I'd suck it up and admit it (American Beauty is one of my favorites and it looks godawful), but I think it looks borderline excellent considering the source material.

[Kris Deering]

The wife and I watched this last night. The transfer was far better than the digital presentation I saw in theaters (shown on a Sony 4K digital projector) and I didn't notice any heavy noise to distract. There are definitely some lower lit scenes that exhibit some heavier film grain, but it was hardly distracting. It could certainly be something in your setup that is exacerbating the issue. Any kind of sharpness boost or detail enhancement setting could do this easily. If I was reviewing I would have given it a solid 4 if not 4.5.

[cooltobeyou]

Just watched this tonight, and I agree with just about everything XL83 said about the film itself. I'd end up scoring it a 4.5 out of 5. It's SO CLOSE to being a perfect 5, but the ending left me hanging a bit too much for my tastes. What, are they going to pull a Rocky on us, and give us a sequel?! lol.

That being said, I think the chances of "Warrior" being nominated for Best Picture are better than you might think. "The Fighter" and "The Wrestler" were both nominated and the movies are pretty similar thematically. MMA doesn't seem like something "the academy" would openly embrace, but neither does Wrestling.

Nick Nolte will win best supporting actor easily, but I don't think Tom Hardy or Joel Edergton will get nominated. Both gave great performances in this film, but the way the movie is scripted, their performances kind of just cancel each other out.

[XL83]

Just watched this tonight, and I agree with just about everything XL83 said about the film itself. I'd end up scoring it a 4.5 out of 5. It's SO CLOSE to being a perfect 5, but the ending left me hanging a bit too much for my tastes. What, are they going to pull a Rocky on us, and give us a sequel?! lol.

That being said, I think the chances of "Warrior" being nominated for Best Picture are better than you might think. "The Fighter" and "The Wrestler" were both nominated and the movies are pretty similar thematically. MMA doesn't seem like something "the academy" would openly embrace, but neither does Wrestling.

Nick Nolte will win best supporting actor easily, but I don't think Tom Hardy or Joel Edergton will get nominated. Both gave great performances in this film, but the way the movie is scripted, their performances kind of just cancel each other out.

I definitely agree about neither Hardy nor Edgerton really deserving the W because, who do you pick? They do sorta cancel eachother out so neither one really stands apart. It would just be nice to see them get a nod.

After my initial post I did some snooping around on the internet, and all the sites that make a business of predicting Oscar noms and stuff are mentioning crap like War Horse, which wasn't even out yet, The Artist, which is 100% engineered to be an Oscar movie, The Descendants, Hugo, Moneyball etc. I can't find a single site mentioning Warrior as having even a remote outside shot, but pretty much all of them put Nolte's performance in it in the top 5, so they've clearly seen it. Most sites list Jonah Hill as a top contender for the Best Supporting Oscar for Moneyball. Um what? I loved Moneyball and he was great in it, but not supporting actor great. Just because he was in Superbad drawing dicks a few years ago, people are like HOLY SHIT HE DID A SERIOUS MOVIE and frankly giving him too much credit.

I dunno, anything can happen but I somehow see this one getting snubbed majorly on award night. Nolte at least better win because I think it's ridiculous how overlooked this movie has been right from day one. It spent less than 3 full weeks in the theater here, threads about it are less trafficked than anything else of it's caliber... sucks to be those people because they are missing out on a truly great film.