'What Dreams May Come' - High-Def Digest review - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2007, 01:47 AM
jed's Avatar
jed jed is offline
HDD Founder
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,621
Default 'What Dreams May Come' - High-Def Digest review

Kenneth's review of 'What Dreams May Come' is up. He says this HD DVD impresses with a beautiful video transfer, but disappoints with an only average audio track and an anemic set of supplements.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/908/w...msmaycome.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2007, 01:51 AM
Blurry's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,187
Default

Sounds great and I am rely looking forward to this one, should be a treat. It sounds like the low audio rating is not a deficiency of the transfer, just a lackluster soundtrack.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2007, 01:56 AM
eNoize's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,610
Default

I agree with the review -- not reference quality transfer with the all the awe and pop; but great depth and bright, realistic colors.
__________________
M. Enois Duarte
High-Def Digest Contributor
Hi-Def Collection
Unfollow me at twitter: @MEnoisDuarte

Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash
we have very little reason to be interested in them.

~ Pauline Kael
.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2007, 08:40 AM
cloudy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,310
Default

I do respect the time they put into offering reviews on this site.
However, I very rarely agree with their reviews. Most notably on the "movie itself" aspect.
I like movies very much. However I do NOT analyze the depth of the script. If I am entertained, I consider it a good movie. I was very entertained by this movie, and thus I will buy it.
I actually feel kind of sorry for people who watch movies with such deep analysis. Seriously. I can not see how it would be enjoyable AT ALL if I spent most of a movie trying to decide what the director, actors, screen writers, etc should have done differently.
My only goal while watching a movie is to relax and let the movie entertain me.
If I want a review, I prefer to take the advice of people who just like to be entertained. Most notably, the user reviewers on rottentomatoes.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2007, 02:17 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudy View Post
I do respect the time they put into offering reviews on this site.
However, I very rarely agree with their reviews. Most notably on the "movie itself" aspect.
I like movies very much. However I do NOT analyze the depth of the script. If I am entertained, I consider it a good movie. I was very entertained by this movie, and thus I will buy it.
I actually feel kind of sorry for people who watch movies with such deep analysis. Seriously. I can not see how it would be enjoyable AT ALL if I spent most of a movie trying to decide what the director, actors, screen writers, etc should have done differently.
My only goal while watching a movie is to relax and let the movie entertain me.
If I want a review, I prefer to take the advice of people who just like to be entertained. Most notably, the user reviewers on rottentomatoes.com
What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing. A passive viewer lets the movie wash over them without putting too much thought into its meanings, purpose, or methods. An active viewer uses critical thinking to analyze what the movie is trying to do and whether it accomplishes that goal well.

I say this not as an insult. A person likes what a person likes. To each their own. However, a film critic who is not an active viewer would be a very poor film critic indeed.
__________________
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
  #6  
Old 08-17-2007, 02:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing.
I find myself switching frequently between those modes. I finally got around to watching my copy of Letters from Iwo Jima and that was definitely an "active mode" movie for me. Very profound film and it was still on my mind the next day.

On the flip side, I really enjoy watching Independence Day, always in "passive mode".

There are great films that fit one or the other viewing mode, probably a couple of spectacular films that can be enjoyed in either viewing mode and of course movies so bad that they stink regardless of how you try to view them (Aeon Flux would be a personal example of that type of film).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2007, 02:28 PM
divian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,689
Default

I am going to order this title sometime next month.
I like colorful HD.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2007, 02:30 PM
Blurry's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing. A passive viewer lets the movie wash over them without putting too much thought into its meanings, purpose, or methods. An active viewer uses critical thinking to analyze what the movie is trying to do and whether it accomplishes that goal well.

I say this not as an insult. A person likes what a person likes. To each their own. However, a film critic who is not an active viewer would be a very poor film critic indeed.
That's an interesting statement. I find that I try to simply immerse myself in a movie on the first viewing and try to "suspend my disbelief". I try not to critically analyze a movie while watching it unless the movies is so poorly done that the disbelief slaps you in the face (all too often, unfortunately).

If a movie has not successfully suspended my disbelief while watching it, then typically I am not even interested in analyzing it. However, if I feel I was effectively immersed in the film and I felt the impact of various messages that the film was trying to make, I certainly do attempt to analyze it after the fact and keep those analyses in mind on subsequent viewings to further refine them.

Some movies, like Mulholland Drive or Stay or such, I try to be immersed in the movie with the primary viewing part of my mind, but that does not stop me from continuing my analysis in the back of my mind, especially on repeat viewings.

So I guess what I am saying is that to be an effective critic you need to do both. You need to try to experience the story and for that you need to separate your primary viewing mind from the analytical side, yet still be able to analyze both during and after the movie but in a way that minimizes the involvement of the primary viewing mind during the actual watching. I would go so far as to say that someone who cannot separate these facets of his mind would make a lousy reviewer, at least for my tastes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2007, 02:36 PM
cloudy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing. A passive viewer lets the movie wash over them without putting too much thought into its meanings, purpose, or methods. An active viewer uses critical thinking to analyze what the movie is trying to do and whether it accomplishes that goal well.
That does make sense.
I certainly can see how this movie would be looked at "actively". I just enjoyed the look of the film.
But in movies like "300", it's quite pointless to look at it actively, because it was based on a comic, not on fact. And yet, way too many "cridics" dis-liked the movie because it was not true to fact of the real war that went on.
Thanks for the insight though. Now that I think of it, I guess there are titles out there that I look at Actively. Certainly Mystery movies at least.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-20-2007, 05:42 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudy View Post
That does make sense.
I certainly can see how this movie would be looked at "actively". I just enjoyed the look of the film.
But in movies like "300", it's quite pointless to look at it actively, because it was based on a comic, not on fact. And yet, way too many "cridics" dis-liked the movie because it was not true to fact of the real war that went on.
I don't recall too many critics who panned '300' for not being based on historical fact. I think pretty much everyone realized that it was a comic book movie through and through.

Personally, the reason I disliked it was because it felt like an overlong, homoerotic professional wrestling music video.
__________________
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
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Dreams May Come: "New Master Edition" (Japan) Josh Z Blu-ray Imports Subforum 9 04-25-2012 09:49 PM
'What Dreams May Come' is coming May 3 Landy Blu-ray Software General Discussion 34 05-03-2011 04:47 PM
Want To Trade What Dreams May Come Blckman HD DVD Disc Exchange 2 01-18-2011 09:47 PM
What Dreams May Come Kiamat Blu-ray Wish Lists 2 06-21-2008 05:29 PM
What Dreams May Come, anyone buying? Treadstone HD DVD Software General Discussion 27 08-20-2007 04:07 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