Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' on Blu-Ray (1 Viewer)

[Garrett Lundy]

I would have called it the "Cheese Makers Edition".

 

[Ron Reda]

Just picked this up at BB. Hope to check it out soon...I've never seen it.

 

[Keith Paynter]

I think the 2-disc artwork is meant for the SD edition. The table-read runs 110 minutes in SD quality (6Mps average) and the Making of documentary runs 1 hour (6Mps average).

Excellent documentary, and I think it is a better feature. There are also (I think) new commentaries to the deleted scenes.

 

[Ron Reda]

Finally got around to checking this out last night for the first time. Absolutely hysterical! I was laughing my a*s off throughout much of the movie. My only gripe is that with their thick English accents and the older sound design and/or mix, it was difficult to hear some lines, but it's a minor quibble. Great film.

 

[Radioman970]

Yep, I saw this on the self. A definite must once I get a BR player. It'll be the 4th version of this film I've purchased. VHS, Standard, Criterion... I didn't get the other release of it. The Criterion was enough up until now. I loved everything about the Crit version. Such a fun film!

And for those who already own the equipment and the new DVD?

"lucky bastard...!"

"oh, he's over there....SPLITTER!!!"

 

[Jonathan Kaye]

Good grief, heaven help you if you ever watch something with English regional accents then, as the Monty Python team's Oxbridge origins mean that they certainly don't have thick accents of any sort!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It's certainly a lot easier to understand than oh, say, Trainspotting with the original dialogue track.

 

[Jeff Robertson]

I just recently picked this up and was shocked at how much of an improvement it was over the Criterion DVD. I know the Criterion was out for a long time and may not be fair to compare to, but the new BD made me appreciate the film a whole lot more. I'm only a passing Python fan, so it will take something like boosting the picture quality to get my attention.

According to another post in the thread, the Lowry process was used to remove excessive grain. Since I have never seen the original film and only have the aforementioned SD DVD to compare it to, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this new presentation. The colors, detail and lack of dirt are all striking. I wasn't expecting much with the sound, but even that was improved greatly.

I mention this grain-removal process due to its potential to change the original look of the film (in a bad way, that is). An example is the post on the Godfather 4k restoration. The individuals who screened the new restoration still note the presence of grain. So I take it either the grain here was not as bad as it was with Life of Brian or the preservationists felt it would be going too far to eliminate/reduce this.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what film grain is and I'm not one those "Transformers" generation HD movie-goers, but where does one draw the line when it comes to grain? I really like the look of the Life of Brian BD, but am I not seeing the film as it was originally intended now? Is it "too clean"?

Allow me to cite only a few digital clean-up jobs that I feel were done right:


The Star Wars films
Indiana Jones Trilogy
Life of Brian


Would I be a fool to suggest that a movie like "Predator" is also a good candidate for this process or would this be a impossible feat considering the film stock used? I know the Blu-Ray is due out soon and according to the reviews, only the benefits of increased resolution will be apparent. Predator isn't exactly a good example on the debate of film grain, but it is one DVD in my current collection that is a stand-out for improvement.

Are there any examples of films cleaned-up for release on DVD/HDM that look more pristine than they should? I'm thinking maybe the last Bond DVD collections may qualify.

 

[MatthewA]

I'm really torn on the grain issue. On one hand, I am against altering the look of any film to suit the tastes of someone who had no hand in shaping it. On the other hand, I don't support leaving in things that have developed due to age and wear. It is those things that should be removed.

If they want to reduce grain, they should only reduce as much as they can without removing picture detail. If they can't do that, then they should leave it be and just clean up dirt and scratches and other defects. Grain is not a defect anymore than brush strokes on a painting.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Me too. When I watched this disc, the presentation was almost too clean. I definitely noticed some sky shots were the grain structure look altered. It took me out of the film a couple times. It is a very fine line indeed.

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and differ with most of you, but I thought the PQ of this BD was just God awful. It is because of the grain. And no, I am not one to bemoan film grain...on the contrary. What irks me is the shocking level of what I can only call "phantom liquid ghosting" grain which seems to follow moving objects around. It is as if the whole film were set underwater and any movement causes the grain "particles" to move in a wake. It is very noticeable to my eye. It's like everyone has Predator cloaks but they aren't invisible, or perhaps some bad X-Files fx. Anyhow, I don't think I've seen this particular artifact on any other BD thus far, and I sincerely hope I do not again. Very distracting.

 

[Radioman970]

Oh my.... :frowning:

Thanks for the warning. I'll stick with what I have until this is in the 5 dollar bin at walmart. Well, that BR bin doesn't exist yet...but it will!!

 

[RobertR]

It's still not clear to me what paidgeek meant when he said it was "extremely grainy". Does that mean "there was more grain than there should be in a good original theatrical print", or does it mean "there was more grain than the marketing boys like to see with our shiny new format"? If it's the latter, I'd be pissed.

 

[Rachael B]

I don't get the feeling that Brian has been scrubbed too clean. I've seen it on film atleast 20 times too. I can't even find anything to blame on the Romans.

 

[Jari K]

My copy is coming, but perhaps it´s just "grainy". Some films can be. It´s usually up to the viewer that will he/she find it "distracting" or something..

These "is it grainy in a *bad way* or in a *good way*"-debates are another "neverending story" in the forums, especially with HD (which reveal the grain more clearly many times). Grain is part of the film stock, one way or another. If people "hate it", it´s best for them to stick with the films like "Cars" and such..

 

[Geoff_D]

Just watched Life Of Brian, and I'm saddened by the tinkering with the picture. Look at any expanse of sky (throughout the whole movie) and you'll see a sheet of frozen grain just hanging there. Ugh.

I hate DNR jobs like this, I really do. And on an older, low-budget flick like Brian it tends to produce artifacts that most people will assume is grain anyway, so what's the f'ing point? It leaves behind a smeary and unnatural looking image that distracts me all too often. The same goes for Anchor Bay's Dawn Of The Dead, as well as several of Paramount's catalogue titles.

I'm not saying that Brian is a hideous mess. It's still very watchable, and given the constraints of the source material I doubt that much more can be done with the film. But I have an intense dislike for grain/noise reduction when used in such an egregious manner, and it's a shame that Sony have joined the DNR bandwagon.

You're preaching to the converted, Jari. What's worrying is that the studios are actively reducing the grain on older movies precisely so that they don't piss off the "Cars" crowd. It's weird how contemporary stuff gets a pass (look at Paramount's Mi3 or Transformers, the Bournes from Univeral and 300 from Warners, all authentically grainy in HD) but older movies get an eraser taken to them.

 

[RobertR]

Sounds like you've confirmed my fears, Geoff. Here we have a new video medium that has the ability to bring us closer to the original film, and what do these cretins do? They run the hell AWAY from the original look to make the "I want my movies to look like my video games and Discovery HD" crowd happy.

 

[Jari K]

I hear you Geoff..

 

[Radioman970]

I was thinking the newer stuff is made with a grainy look for artistic reasons. But the old stuff they didn't really have a choice. But I'm not defending the grain removal attempts. If they can't do it without making a mess they should just leave it alone.

 

[PaulDA]

Sad as it may be, it's a matter of economics. The "video games and Discovery HD" crowd is MUCH larger so it makes business sense (if not artistic sense) to make that "crowd happy".

It's the same with music--can I rip it into low-res lossy files to cram an extra 2000 songs on my iPod trumps hi-res audio. And, on a related front, hyper-dynamically compressed audio that "sounds better" in the car, the kitchen clock/cd/radio and, when ripped, on the iPod, trumps PROPER recording and mastering techniques.

Beer--Coors/Coors Light (swill) served at 1 degree above freezing (to mask its hideous taste) [you can substitute Budweiser or Bud Light or any number of other, similarly useless beer] trumps a nicely flavoured microbrew served at a proper 5-8 degrees C (38-48 degrees F).

I could go on. The good stuff is out there but it will NEVER be the dominant stuff. Just the nature of the beast.