'Army of Darkness' (re-issue) - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Peter's review of the HD DVD-only re-issue of 'Army of Darkness' is up, and unfortuntely this release doesn't right any of the wrongs of the previous HD DVD/DVD combo released by Universal last year. The good news is that, at $5 cheaper, at least it's a better bargain. The bad news is that Universal has lost the only meager extra on the old combo version -- the film's theatrical trailer.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/armyofdarkness_nc.html

[VC-1]

I actually think the combo release is better, since the SDDVD side is just a 480p transer of the HDDVD side, it looks much better than all the other DVD editions of army of darkness (even the original universal release way back when)

[mrkiller]

i dont know why the reviewers review the re-issued movies (Unleashed and Army of Darkness) when we know it has the same PQ/AQ and movie

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by mrkiller

i dont know why the reviewers review the re-issued movies (Unleashed and Army of Darkness) when we know it has the same PQ/AQ and movie

Simply to provide consumers with information -- we wouldn't want anyone to see the reissue on store shelves and assume it was a different edition altogether. With some studios changing the picture quality on rereleases (i.e. 'The Fifth Element'), it may get confusing as time rolls on.

Plus, the original combo editions had features (albeit on the SD side) and these rereleases do not -- a good piece of info to have when deciding if the $5 savings is worth the loss of supplements.

Thanks as always for posting!

[Blurry]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Simply to provide consumers with information -- we wouldn't want anyone to see the reissue on store shelves and assume it was a different edition altogether. With some studios changing the picture quality on rereleases (i.e. 'The Fifth Element'), it may get confusing as time rolls on.

Plus, the original combo editions had features (albeit on the SD side) and these rereleases do not -- a good piece of info to have when deciding if the $5 savings is worth the loss of supplements.

Thanks as always for posting!

Ken,

Thanks for giving feedback in the discussion threads, it is appreciated.

-Blurry

[mrkiller]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Simply to provide consumers with information -- we wouldn't want anyone to see the reissue on store shelves and assume it was a different edition altogether. With some studios changing the picture quality on rereleases (i.e. 'The Fifth Element'), it may get confusing as time rolls on.

Plus, the original combo editions had features (albeit on the SD side) and these rereleases do not -- a good piece of info to have when deciding if the $5 savings is worth the loss of supplements.

Thanks as always for posting!

Thanks for always answearing . By the way do you review every HD DVD/Blu-ray movie ?

[Spideybat]

Originally Posted by mrkiller

Thanks for always answearing . By the way do you review every HD DVD/Blu-ray movie ?

I believe he and Peter share that task.

[natiahs]

I thought the AoD HD release had a surprisingly nice transfer. I didn't think the movie could still look as good as it does. There are some muddy scenes (such as the mini-Ash sequence), but those are more the result of the filming process than the fault of a poor transfer.

But then I don't think the reviewers on this site really understand film. They knocked Hustle & Flow for having a "noisy" transfer when all they were seeing was 16mm film grain (I expect the decision to use 16mm was to give the film a gritty look to match its subject matter). Meanwhile, they seem to give glowing video reviews to anything shot pure digital, regardless of how much color and texture suffers as a result.

I really appreciate the comprehensive info on the video & sound details, though. Its nice to know which disks have high-def audio tracks in advance. Down with 640k audio!

N

[taygan315]

The re-issue of this movie just seemed pointless to me at the time they annonced it. Looks like the result was the same: pointless.

[crazyfatrobot]

"the source material is inconsistent, and time has certainly not done the film's pre-CGI special effects any favors".

"Colors also suffer from a dated appearance".

I can understand pointing out "artificial" flaws like edge enhancement and smeared colors etc. But criticizing the films effects and calling it's appearance dated has no place in the technical portion of the review. The question should be : how does it compare to a 35mm projection of the film?

The special effects were always on the shoddy side so what's the point of mentioning that in an evaluation of the digital transfer? If it's an accurate reproduction of the celluloid experience then it's done it's job.

[scoobarama]

Personally, I'm most disappointed by the fact that Universal chose to include ONLY the theatrical version of this film. With as many subsequent SE releases as the original DVD release has had, one would think that an official HD release would at least include the extras that have been made available PLUS the widely available version with the original ending.

I already own three different DVD versions of this classic film. I would like to consolidate all of those into ONE freaking HD-DVD. Instead, it looks like we've gotten a barely passable reissue of the worst edition out there.

Good Job, Universal! Nicely done!

[AOD]

Maybe Universal didn't have the rights to the extra material. They never released it in the past, Anchor Bay did. Then again, Anchor Bay doesn't have a good source to work from in the first place.