'Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review - Page 2 - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-21-2011, 04:08 AM
XL83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Hickman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-21-2011, 09:45 AM
XL83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 968
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-21-2011, 10:35 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 24
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-22-2011, 01:35 AM
cooltobeyou's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,655
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-22-2011, 02:35 AM
XL83's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooltobeyou View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-22-2011, 04:17 AM
taygan315's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooltobeyou View Post
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 just finished watching this (for the first time) as well. Best movie I have seen all year....Easily! I saw what Luke was talking about with regards to the PQ. Some of the night shots were full of noise and ugly to watch. Daylight shots were not bad,imo. In respect to Luke, I would not give it a 2.5 star for PQ however. More like a 3.5 (just in my opinion that does not really matter because I did not write the review,lol)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-22-2011, 02:48 PM
LordoftheRingsEE's Avatar
Formerly Lordoftherings
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,555
Default

True, you did not write the review; but you did read it though.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-22-2011, 03:50 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooltobeyou View Post
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.
The difference here is that both The Wrestler and The Fighter were box office successes, and this one was not. Warrior has already been forgotten by most critics, who left it off their year-end Top 10 lists. It's extremely unlikely to be nominated for any Oscars.

I'm not saying that this is right, but the reality of the situation is that worthy movies get ignored all the time. If the movie had been a box office hit, it might have a shot at staying fresh in Academy voters' minds. As it is, it's likely to fall into obscurity pretty quickly.
__________________
Josh Z
Former Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest
My opinions are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-22-2011, 04:05 PM
cooltobeyou's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The difference here is that both The Wrestler and The Fighter were box office successes, and this one was not. Warrior has already been forgotten by most critics, who left it off their year-end Top 10 lists. It's extremely unlikely to be nominated for any Oscars.

I'm not saying that this is right, but the reality of the situation is that worthy movies get ignored all the time. If the movie had been a box office hit, it might have a shot at staying fresh in Academy voters' minds. As it is, it's likely to fall into obscurity pretty quickly.
You make a good point there. It's a shame this movie didn't do better at the box office, and that so many critics have already forgotten about it.

I watch a great amount of movies every year, and I can't recall very many movies that were better than "Warrior" this year.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-22-2011, 04:06 PM
skycracksopen's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 878
Default

Yeah, as much as I liked this movie, it's just not Oscar bait.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'The Road Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review jed Blu-ray Software General Discussion 12 06-23-2011 01:52 AM
'Legend of the Tsunami Warrior' High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 12 07-04-2010 03:20 AM
'Death Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 12 01-31-2010 10:39 PM
'The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 18 09-05-2008 07:08 PM
'The Road Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review jed HD DVD Software General Discussion 14 06-14-2007 12:19 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off