'Commando' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Kenneth's review of 'Commando' has been posted. He says the film doesn't live up to his nostalgic memories, but many viewers will be able to enjoy it for the 80's actionfest that it is. He was especially disappointed in this Blu-ray, which features an average video transfer, a lackluster audio package, and zero supplements. With a supplements pack standard DVD Director's Cut recently released, his verdict on this one is to skip it.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/508/commando.html

[Cochise]

This is one of the titles Fox pulled last year when AACS was cracked. We waited a year for the same bare bones, mpeg2 transfer for $40????

No thanks.

[bboy412]

Fox back to shit old habits with these two latest releases. I know the source material for both this and predator would'nt have been the best, but it still pisses me off becuase Fox can deliver the goods when they want to (I,robot).

[Biosynthnut]

Considering how poorly FMJ first release was... This looks like the same along with Pred.

Skip them both. This is Blu Ray get it right and get it perfect.

[ben1080p]

Never seen it..dont want to..

[gamma626]

I loved this movie from way back then. I only had it on VHS so i'll pick this up.

[Son of Odin]

I just watched commando and I feel it's about 3.5 star PQ. It's no I'Robot but it's a hell of alot better than the sd dvd version. well worth it in my book. considering the master wasn't in prestine condition to begin with I believe Fox did a great job. the sharpness was a little too much and there is edge enhancement. but they cleaned it up well. Predator is well done also. these movies are classics, any slight upgrade is always worthy of a new purchase.

[beyondmediaonline.com]

Did anyone pick this one up yet? How is the PQ and SQ?

[JaylisJayP]

This movie will never look great. It'll never have a 4 star or 5 star PQ...saying "FOX do it perfect or I'm not buying it" is just an ignorant statement.

I'm not advocating you spend $40 or even $30 for it, but if you like the movie, this might be as good as it gets for PQ.

If you don't like the movie....why are you in this thread?

[DSmalls84]

Originally Posted by candymangt

Did anyone pick this one up yet? How is the PQ and SQ?

Mine comes in tomorrow but I believe dvd beaver had some screen caps of it.

[earthquake]

[quote=JaylisJayP;905846]This movie will never look great. It'll never have a 4 star or 5 star PQ...saying "FOX do it perfect or I'm not buying it" is just an ignorant statement.

I'm not advocating you spend $40 or even $30 for it, but if you like the movie, this might be as good as it gets for PQ.[quote]

How is that an ignorant statement? Fox needs to make their films stand out as upgrades to make people rebuy. Doing it perfectly in most peoples reasonable expectations is making sure it's the best print with the cleanest transfer with complete bonus features.

To fued over which format will bring the best quality and then release substandard content at ridiculous prices is insulting to the consumer.

On a different note, I think the reviews need to be clarified. For picture quality I want to know if this is the most accurate representation of the look of the actual film negative.

PQ based on crispness as compared to a newer film like "I, Robot" is comparing apples to oranges. PQ should ONLY be based on accurateness of the transfer to the original print.

I want to get this but I'm not giving FOX a dime until they put out a more complete package that includes the material ALREADY out there.

[Hi-Def Steve]

Watched this title tonight. The video quality was what I expected from a title like this. A 3/.5 sounds about right. I love this movie and had a blast watching it again with improved quality over the dvd.

[Giles]

who actually would buy this at the full MSRP price - sorry, but I'd never buy this title convincing Fox this release is acceptable. Sure it's high def, but big effin whoop, the director's cut isn't included nor the supplements - boo Fox, step into reality and stop treating us HDM consumers like idiots.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by earthquake

On a different note, I think the reviews need to be clarified. For picture quality I want to know if this is the most accurate representation of the look of the actual film negative.

PQ based on crispness as compared to a newer film like "I, Robot" is comparing apples to oranges. PQ should ONLY be based on accurateness of the transfer to the original print.

I want to get this but I'm not giving FOX a dime until they put out a more complete package that includes the material ALREADY out there.

I definitely understand your point. But while that may seem ideal in some cases like this one, we can't obtain access to the actual film negative. Even if we could, how would we have judged 'Blade Runner's negative? There's no possibility that any of us could have imagined the sort of restorative miracles Warner Brothers produced with that title. The negative would have given us a false impression of how amazing 'Blade Runner' could actually look.

'Blade Runner' also proves a studio can do anything if they invest the proper resources into a restoration. Do I expect a title like 'Commando' to ever receive this sort of effort? No. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't judge it compared to other catalog titles that have received that sort of attention.

At the end of the day, fans and reviewers alike need to expect more. If we don't expect more, then we'll always be given less. I certainly don't think anyone should whine up the pole for a title like 'Commando' (which most studios wouldn't see as a title worth 'Blade Runner' style restorative efforts), but it should be judged accordingly. In my opinion, 'Blade Runner' looks just as good as 'I, Robot,' so comparing 'Commando' to titles across the board (old or new) doesn't seem off base.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies. Thanks as always for posting! I hope my post didn't come off as argumentative or rude -- it's never my intention!

[earthquake]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I definitely understand your point. But while that may seem ideal in some cases like this one, we can't obtain access to the actual film negative. Even if we could, how would we have judged 'Blade Runner's negative? There's no possibility that any of us could have imagined the sort of restorative miracles Warner Brothers produced with that title. The negative would have given us a false impression of how amazing 'Blade Runner' could actually look.

'Blade Runner' also proves a studio can do anything if they invest the proper resources into a restoration. Do I expect a title like 'Commando' to ever receive this sort of effort? No. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't judge it compared to other catalog titles that have received that sort of attention.

At the end of the day, fans and reviewers alike need to expect more. If we don't expect more, then we'll always be given less. I certainly don't think anyone should whine up the pole for a title like 'Commando' (which most studios wouldn't see as a title worth 'Blade Runner' style restorative efforts), but it should be judged accordingly. In my opinion, 'Blade Runner' looks just as good as 'I, Robot,' so comparing 'Commando' to titles across the board (old or new) doesn't seem off base.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies. Thanks as always for posting! I hope my post didn't come off as argumentative or rude -- it's never my intention!

I do understand where you're coming from. But I don't like the fact that most reviews I read will characterize film grain as a flaw or detractor. It really shouldn't affect the PQ score. Digital noise, dirt and blemishes is something completely different. Of course you can't examine the original print but you can detect flaws that are not source related.

Films like "Commando" and "Indiana Jones- Temple of Doom" (the rope bridge scene in particular) have film grain. There really isn't a need to mention it at all when reviewing PQ unless you're trying to clarify that it isn't a transfer flaw. Some films have it intentionally.

Of course I don't think most people understand the difference between grain and digital (mosquito) noise. Most of them see film grain as a defect which it IS NOT. The only defect is when a bad transfer exacerbates it.

So saying "Predator" doesn't or will never look as good as "I, Robot" is very subjective. I think the grain adds to the grittiness of the film and it's locale and adds a sort of realism to the film.

That's the point I was trying to make. It might not have been too clear.

By the way, how would one go about becoming a reviewer?