New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The Secret of NIMH

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 

NIMH.jpg

 

The Secret of NIMH (Blu-ray)
Directed by  Don Bluth

Studio: MGM
Year: 1982
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1   1080p   AVC codec  
Running Time: 83 minutes
Rating: G
Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 English, Spanish, others
Subtitles:  SDH. French, Spanish

Region:  A
MSRP:  $ 19.99


Release Date: March 29, 2011

Review Date: March 28, 2011

 

 

The Film

3.5/5

 

Don Bluth’s The Secret of NIMH is a darker and more ominous animated film than the features that were then being produced at his old home Disney at the time (the closest Disney title in tone and temperament to NIMH was The Black Cauldron which premiered three years after this), and while the animation is first-rate, the storytelling is still a bit rocky and erratic. Based on an award-winning children’s book, The Secret of NIMH likely plays much better today than it did on its first release. A more serious story and the lack of lovable, huggable characters distinguish it from what was passing as top tier feature animation at the time.

 

With her son desperately ill with pneumonia and her home under imminent threat from a man pulling a plow over the concrete block where they reside, field mouse Mrs. Brisby (Elizabeth Hartman) ventures out into the world to get medicine from Mr. Ages (Arthur Malet) and advice on moving her concrete block from the Great Owl (John Carradine). He suggests that she enlist the “rats of NIMH” to help her with her moving problem, and during the course of her adventures, she learns that these particular rats were scientifically experimented upon resulting in super intelligence and that they have ties to her late husband. The rat pack is in the midst of a struggle for power with the evil Jenner (Paul Shenar) battling with the heroic Justin (Peter Strauss) for control of the group. Head sorcerer Nicodemus (Derek Jacobi) does what he can to instill confidence in Mrs. Brisby that things can turn out for the best if she’s willing to conquer her fears and proceeed with courage.

 

With superb animation on display (but lacking the multiplane camera which would have given the images even greater depth than they now have), the film is a pleasure to experience. It gets off to a somewhat murky start with a pre-credit sequence that’s puzzling (we don’t know who’s speaking or what he’s talking about, and it isn’t cleared up for almost an hour), and some rather flat early sequences as Mrs. Brisby struggles frantically to get to the doctor to get medicine for her child may leave adults squirming in their seats early on. Her initial encounters with the klutzy crow Jeremy (Dom DeLuise) wear out their welcome fast, and while the bewildered bird is probably a kiddie favorite, a little of him goes a long way throughout the film. (Originally planned to be in only two scenes, the actor voicing him was such a hit in the recording studio that his improvisations were incorporated into seven sequences of the movie.) Action picks up and the tone becomes more deliciously threatening as the film proceeds neatly drawing in everyone’s attention to the climactic fight sequence. Earlier, an escape from a cat makes for engrossing viewing, and the “moving day” sequence with frantic field animals scurrying away en masse lend a real air of excitement to the drama of the movie. To their credit, the filmmakers have not shied away from the darker aspects of life. There are three prominent deaths in the movie, and they aren’t sugar-coated for the young ones either. No, the film doesn’t become a blood-spattered canvas, but the realities and harshness of life for these creatures aren’t neglected either.

 

The voice casting is superb. Elizabeth Hartman gracefully segues from tentative fright to real resolve during the course of the movie. The wonderful Hermione Baddeley steals all of her scenes as the scatter-brained know-it-all Auntie Shrew. John Carradine’s naturally low-speaking voice lends a real gravitas to his lordly owl sequence while Dom DeLuise does his usual chattering silliness as the addled crow. There is wonderful contrast to the respective heroics and villainy of Peter Strauss and Paul Shenar as the rivals for the control of NIMH. Look closely into the cast list, and you’ll see the very young Wil Wheaton and Shannen Doherty voicing two of Mrs. Frisby’s children.

 

 

Video Quality

4/5

 

The film has been framed at its theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and presented in 1080p using the AVC codec. While the image has not been given the scrub and polish of the latest Disney animated classics (which some will breathe a sigh of relief about), the integrity of the film look has been retained with grain present and colors alternately bright or muted depending on the shots. Color density is generally fine though occasionally there is slight flicker in the image. There is no banding to be seen in the frame. Sharpness is generally excellent, but there are some shots which seem a bit soft and ill-matched to the shots before and after them. Clean-up has removed all scratches from previous releases and most of the dirt, too, though there are some white and black specks to be seen throughout the presentation. The film has been divided into 24 chapters.

 

 

Audio Quality

4/5

 

The DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 stereo sound presentation effectively blends the well-recorded dialogue with the decent (but not outstanding) sound effects and Jerry Goldsmith’s winning score to produce a very good aural experience. The song “Flying Dreams” makes for a lovely ballad reproduced with better than average fidelity, and there is some good, tight bass in the mix, too.

 

 

Special Features

2.5/5

 

The audio commentary is provided by producer-director-writer-animator Don Bluth and producer-animator-writer Gary Goldman. They have an easy camaraderie and both contribute many memories about the making of the movie. Fans of the movie will enjoy hearing the two men discuss problems they encountered, shots they’d like to go back and fix, and praise to all who worked on the film.

 

“Secrets Behind the Secret” is a 2007 making-of featurette where Gary Goldman and Don Bluth discuss putting their new studio together, the importance of animators being actors, and other assorted memories of making this movie. It runs for 14 ½ minutes in 480i.

 

The theatrical trailer is presented in 4:3 but is in 1080p and runs for 2 ¼ minutes.

 

The disc also contains a promo trailer in 1080p for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

 

 

In Conclusion

3.5/5 (not an average)

 

A dark but delightful animated adventure with perhaps a more menacing tone than much of the animation being produced at the time, The Secret of NIMH looks and sounds very nice in high definition, and the sprinkling of bonus material is also welcome.

 

 

 

Matt Hough

Charlotte, NC

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 38

I agree with Matt characterizing this movie as darker than most animation.  I'm going to have to give it a rental before I buy because I can't remember how well I liked it.

post #3 of 38

Thanks for the review Matt.  I was a little nervous about all the MGM titles being cranked out.  Glad to hear (see?) that the video looks good and it seems to be a good buy at $13.99

post #4 of 38

I still wish they included the 1:33.1 version as well.

post #5 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisby View Post

I still wish they included the 1:33.1 version as well.


Why is that?

 

post #6 of 38

I really love this movie but I'm kind of mad that I got it on blu-ray. The picture is horrible. Almost every shot has what I call Pitting. It's not from age or damage. I don't mind the flicks and film "stuff." Sometimes that can add to the atmosphere of a movie. But this transfer has had the sharpness turned up way too high and created the pitting/blockyness. This is the worst looking blu-ray that I have ever seen. It's even worse than the 10th Anniversary dvd of Highlander. I can't believe they didn't do any restoration at all besides messing up the sharpness. Stick with the dvd. Hopefully they do American Tail and Land Before Time right when they come out. I thought that watching it on a non HD tv would help. But it didn't. Still looks like crap.

post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD View Post




Why is that?

 


I think it's usually open matte on this particular film.  More visual info...  I think..?

 

My fav animated film.  Love it!  will upgrade.  So...4th dip on this.  *sigh*  

 

Glad the trailer is included this time.  The 2-DVD set didn't, but the lacking 1-dvd release did. 

 

post #8 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisby View Post

I still wish they included the 1:33.1 version as well.



In his commentary, the director expresses his glee that the high def release will be the theatrical widescreen version, not the 4:3 version he's watching while doing the commentary.

 

post #9 of 38

I'm hoping this is a proper widescreen. I don't remember all the hubbub around the original DVD release, but I think it amounted to this:

 

Some people claimed (and I am no expert so I can't confirm) that the 1.33 image on the original DVD was not true open matte, but a pan and scan version. Then the "widescreen" version was simply a matted down version of the pan-and-scan, so the resulting image was a severely cropped version of the movie--although the aspect ratio is correct it wasn't the entire theatrical picture you saw on the DVD, but something that was cropped on all sides, preserving the "ratio" but robbing you of a lot of picture image on all four sides.

 

Again, I can't confirm or deny, just what I recall reading/seeing. I've already preordered this and so I have high hopes that this is the true theatrical aspect ratio. If it truly was drawn in 1.33:1 it would have been cool to have that version (being the completist that I am) but I'll definitely settle for the true theatrical aspect ratio.

 

What worries me is that the director is talking with glee about a product he hasn't seen. He's doing the commentary on a 1.33 version and he's been told by the disc authors that the widescreen version will be the true theatrical version, but who knows how involved he is on that front. If he's a hands-on Ridley Scott type of director then I have faith. If he's just believing what the disc authorers are saying, then I have some reservations until I see the final product. Should arrive tomorrow so I look forward to screening it tomorrow night and comparing with the DVD version I have.

post #10 of 38

I hope it looks at least as good as the blu ray for Heavy Metal.  I was very happy with it.  I felt it was how the film should look, warts and all. 

post #11 of 38

LOL! Methinks he doesn't like natural film-grain...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spottedfeather View Post

I really love this movie but I'm kind of mad that I got it on blu-ray. The picture is horrible. Almost every shot has what I call Pitting. It's not from age or damage. I don't mind the flicks and film "stuff." Sometimes that can add to the atmosphere of a movie. But this transfer has had the sharpness turned up way too high and created the pitting/blockyness. This is the worst looking blu-ray that I have ever seen. It's even worse than the 10th Anniversary dvd of Highlander. I can't believe they didn't do any restoration at all besides messing up the sharpness. Stick with the dvd. Hopefully they do American Tail and Land Before Time right when they come out. I thought that watching it on a non HD tv would help. But it didn't. Still looks like crap.



 

post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark-P View Post

LOL! Methinks he doesn't like natural film-grain...
 



 


"NIMH" goes well beyond "natural film grain" - it's super-grainy.  And dirty.  And often fuzzy for no apparent reason.

 

I don't agree with the high rating the transfer got here - I thought the image was a 2.5/5 at best...

 

post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson View Post




"NIMH" goes well beyond "natural film grain" - it's super-grainy.  And dirty.  And often fuzzy for no apparent reason.

 

I don't agree with the high rating the transfer got here - I thought the image was a 2.5/5 at best...

 

 

Sounds more like artifacts brought on by budgetary issues. Remember, Bluth was working outside of the studio system for this. To try to "fix" (ala Disney) a lot of the cell dirt and exposure problems would be too detrimental to the final product.
 

 

post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Dalek View Post



 

Sounds more like artifacts brought on by budgetary issues.
 

 


Maybe.  It was still an ugly picture much of the time and that a 4/5 overstates what you'll see...

 

post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Dalek View Post



 

Sounds more like artifacts brought on by budgetary issues. Remember, Bluth was working outside of the studio system for this. To try to "fix" (ala Disney) a lot of the cell dirt and exposure problems would be too detrimental to the final product.
 

It's not artifacts from budgetary issues. The colours are fine and the film grain is fine. It seems like there is a blanket over the entire picture that made of tiny blocks. It seems to be more from some strange digital manipulation than anything else. It's a horrible transfer. This "pit grid" that covers the entire movie hasn't been there in other transfers of the movie that I've seen. It's not film grain, which is fine. It's not flecks or "old movie flicking", which is also fine. There is just a sort of pitting or haze over the entire movie.



 

post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson View Post




"NIMH" goes well beyond "natural film grain" - it's super-grainy.  And dirty.  And often fuzzy for no apparent reason.

 

I don't agree with the high rating the transfer got here - I thought the image was a 2.5/5 at best...

 

2.5 is really being generous.



 

post #17 of 38

I was hoping to finally add this film to my collection, but it sounds like, once again, Bluth's best film has gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to a quality release. Even the cover art is shit, with a zero sense of design: just characters randomly plastered over a generic background. It makes it look like this film was just your typical made-for-TV shlock animated film with low budget, low quality animation and design.  This film deserves better. It deserves a proper clean-up and transfer and with proper cover art, meaning the original theatrical poster art which was a great piece of work. Maybe one of these years a proper release of this film will finally get done: I hope before I shuffle off this mortal coil. In the meantime I'll have to keep waiting for this film, along with another favorite: The Plague Dogs.

post #18 of 38

^^ thumbsup.gif

 

I think that's how all of us think with this film.  The studio should take note.  How many potential buyers are steering clear of this because of that stupid cover and how many parents are buying this film for their 4 year old? 

 

God.  *puts head in hands* Plague Dogs.  You had to bring up Plague Dogs.  *refills anti-depressant drugs...then refills them again with forged prescription...then gets another forged prescription and takes it to another pharmacy in another town and fills it*   To quote HeeHaw:  "gloom despair and agony on me...oooOOOOhhh!"

post #19 of 38

I watched about half of this last night. My rating is somewhere in between Colin's and Matt's. I think I saw some of the things (some occasional haziness that I don't think I'd attribute to some post-processing, but rather maybe from the master they used) that Colin described, but not to the point where I'd knock it down to a 2.5. I'd probably rate this about 3.25/5 for picture. I would stop short of calling it super-grainy and dirty. I saw grain, but not anything I would consider egregious, and I saw some dirt but nothing out of line with other catalog titles that haven't gone through an extensive cleanup or restoration.

 

Not sure about the aspect ratio question - it is framed at 1.85:1 (I saw the minute black bars on my non-overscanned 16x9 TV) and nothing looked too tightly framed or abnormally off-center. I hate to sound like I'm settling, but for $14 shipped from Amazon, I think I got roughly what I paid for. As with everyone else, I'd love to have a full restoration of one of my favorite animated films of all time, but I think it's a matter of financial sense for the studio. I don't think this title would generate the sales that the Disney titles do with regards to justifying a restoration, and Bluth Films is now defunct and Fox shut down Fox Animation (which is where he made Anastasia and Titan A.E. - an underrated film IMHO which bombed in the B.O.).

 

I just don't think Bluth has the financial cache anymore to be able to do this title justice, unfortunately.

post #20 of 38

Ah, the voice of reason. I think expectations are just too high for some of these catalog titles on Blu-ray. Sure it's possible for the studio to sink a ton of money into a full restoration by scanning original elements and using digital tools to make it look like high-def video. Obviously they do it for some high prestige titles but I really don't have a problem with putting catalog titles out on Blu-ray that just replicate the original look of the movie on film. If I can find this BD for under $10 I will buy it.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina View Post

...I'd probably rate this about 3.25/5 for picture. I would stop short of calling it super-grainy and dirty. I saw grain, but not anything I would consider egregious, and I saw some dirt but nothing out of line with other catalog titles that haven't gone through an extensive cleanup or restoration...


 

post #21 of 38

Yeah I obviously haven't seen the new blu-ray but I did see in 1080 on HDNet Movies and it looked pretty good for what it is, a lower budget animated film from the early 80s. That's not a flaw of the transfer, that's just the way the film looks.

post #22 of 38

Comments from Gary Goldman on Don Bluth's site (I edited it to remove non essential content and to re-format it for easier reading):

 

Quote:

I haven't seen the final NIMH, nor Anastasia's Blu-ray transfer on DVD. However, there is a digital master of Anastasia (it was shot digitally, in the computer and transferred to film for its release in 1997), and I'm sure they used the digital master and not a film element.

 

The inter-positive film print for The Secret of NIMH, or intermediate protective master (made from the original film negative) was physically cleaned before we started the transfer. However, every film has imbedded dirt and dust in the images of every frame, not just dust residing on the surface of the film. And, The Secret of NIMH was shot on 35MM film, way before digital filmmaking.

 

I personally supervised the initial color-correction transfer from film to the digital high definition Blu-ray format, but whatever debris was in the film image was transferred to the digital master. The next process was to digitally clean the new digital master of residual negative film dirt, dust and possible scratches, which I was unable to remain in LA to supervise, nor was I offered the opportunity.

 

What many people do not understand is that when you upgrade to a much higher resolution, the film dust, dirt and scratches become extraordinarily visible to the naked eye. I know that what Disney does for their classics is go back to the original negative and transfer it digitally at a full 4000 pixels (film resolution - FYI Television resolution is around 525 pixels about 25% of film resolution, so video and the older DVD imagery is very soft compared to HD or film imagery). This high res transfer allows the computer operator to easily find all of the flaws imbedded in each individual frame of the film. It's not just running the digital print thru some sort of electronic dust/dirt/scratch filter. Though, that is part of the process, but that process only removes the most prevalent and obvious specs. Someone has to remove the tiny, faint "dirt" specs from each and every frame.

 

When I asked about their process, they told me that the process would probably not be as extensive as I had asked for, that they would probably spend no more than three days to a week. I'm sure that when I get my Blu-ray copy of The Secret of NIMH, I will especially be looking at the digital cleaning job that they did. By the way, again we were hoping for the theatrical poster to be used for the packaging art. Instead the new Blu-ray still uses that same art as on the the past few releases - very discouraging.

 

Best, Gary 

 

I personally am very happy with the NIMH transfer. It looks the best it ever has and it will be a very long time before it gets another new transfer, if ever.

post #23 of 38

Pretty much what I would expect. Remember, we all have our favorite movies that we want "done right" but let's not forget Hollywood is a business, and is bottom-line driven. Putting my love for this film aside, this is what I would consider a reasonable effort for a studio to put forth for a title with the anticipated selling power that NIMH has. I'm actually surprised they even included Goldman on the first color-correction transfer, that's more than I thought they'd do.

post #24 of 38

Not to belabor the PQ point, but I'm now watching w/ the commentary, and what's become obvious is how some of the perceived pic quality issues (haziness, focus, etc.) is actually a limitation based on "tricks" they did to achieve certain things which studios which had more money and time wouldn't have needed to do, and certainly don't need to be done with computer animation today.

 

So I'm revising (upwards) my opinion of the PQ, given how much of what we may see as a "poor quality" picture is actually the byproduct of the limitations they had given time, money, etc. at the making of the film.

post #25 of 38

^ the sad truth.  Some graininess is like visible paint brush strokes.  Just enjoy it as a labor of love by the artist.  :) 

post #26 of 38

Also, the audio format is incorrect. It decodes as stereo when it should be matrixed surround which is the correct theatrical release format.

No, activating Pro-Logic does nothing. The audio is stereo unless you switch your BR player to PCM in which case you can use Pro-Logic to decode the audio as it was intended to be heard.

The DVD got it right. The audio decodes properly even without activating Pro-Logic. Not sure why they couldn't get it right for the DVD. 

 

It's possible it's incorrectly flagged as my receiver shows: L/R/S which is correct but the display shows: STEREO instead of DTS-HD MASTER.

 

Clash Of The Titans (1981) and All Dogs Go To Heaven also suffer from this "stereo only" mentality. Very sad that no one cares.

post #27 of 38

Many theaters around the time of NiMH still had stereo, so I'm hoping they used the original stereo soundtrack. And to be honest, I've never been the biggest fan of Pro Logic, so this doesn't bother me as much as if it were a discrete 5.1 soundtrack that was downmixed to 2.0. YMMV.

post #28 of 38

Fox made that same mistake when they did their SE of Red Dawn. I can't understand why they keep repeating it.


 

post #29 of 38


The fault is not with the disc but with your receiver. I've purchased several of the new Fox Blu-rays with DTS-MA 2.0 and my receiver automatically kicks into pro-logic. If you have an older receiver that doesn't do the high-resolution codecs (DTS-MA) then you are getting the core DTS sound and in the olden days, receiver manufacturers never considered the prospect of DTS 2.0 surround. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom M View Post

Also, the audio format is incorrect. It decodes as stereo when it should be matrixed surround which is the correct theatrical release format.
 

 

post #30 of 38

 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina View Post

Many theaters around the time of NiMH still had stereo, so I'm hoping they used the original stereo soundtrack. And to be honest, I've never been the biggest fan of Pro Logic, so this doesn't bother me as much as if it were a discrete 5.1 soundtrack that was downmixed to 2.0. YMMV.

Sounds like someone needs a history lesson:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Stereo

 

 Also, Pro-Logic is just the home version of Dolby Stereo. Even if you have it off, most 2.0 DVDs will activate anyway.
 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark-P View Post


The fault is not with the disc but with your receiver. I've purchased several of the new Fox Blu-rays with DTS-MA 2.0 and my receiver automatically kicks into pro-logic. If you have an older receiver that doesn't do the high-resolution codecs (DTS-MA) then you are getting the core DTS sound and in the olden days, receiver manufacturers never considered the prospect of DTS 2.0 surround. 

 

My receiver decodes all the new audio formats just fine. If I was just getting the core the display would read DTS not STEREO.

 

The disc may be decoding properly for you but does not mean it isn't improperly flagged. Some receivers can decode Die Hard 2 properly but most cannot.

 

Judging from what I've read online most are getting just stereo from NIMH not stereo surround.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Official HTF Blu-ray Reviews

Gear mentioned in this thread: