Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
3D Blu-ray Reviews

Man in the Dark 3D Blu-ray Review

Blu-ray 3D Blu-ray Sony Pictures Twilight Time

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 of 27 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 41,777 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted January 26 2014 - 05:57 AM

 

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'times new roman', times, serif;font-size:15px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]Ron, for the most part, the only real problem with the outward projections are that they are too fast. The gunfight during the car chase works best, though a couple of the surgery shots work pretty well.[/color]

 

 

 

I would agree with that.


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#22 of 27 OFFLINE   Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member



  • 5,524 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted February 10 2014 - 01:23 PM

Just finished watching Man In The Dark.

 

It's a fairly short film, coming in at 70 minutes.

 

Not a bad film.  Not a great film. I sort of laughed at the exaggerated level of dialogue.  The

effects look as if they were done on a shoe-string budget.  You can clearly see the wire on

a bird that comes shooting outwards, and later, attached to a crawling spider.

 

….

 

On the plus side, the quality of this transfer is just fantastic.  Beautiful, razor-sharp B&W

imagery.  Nice black levels.  The film has been immaculately cleaned.  

 

As far as the 3D is concerned, it excels in its level of depth, thanks in part to its placement

of objects.   Depth wise, this is one of the best classic 3D releases I have seen.

 

However, as far as forward projection is concerned, it fails for me.  

 

First let me say that I violated my vow never to purchase from TT, I dislike their business model, to put it mildly.  I bought this movie because…well I'm a 3D whore.  I hope that casting aspersions upon myself does not violate forum rules.   :)

 

Ron's comments I mostly agree with.  The transfer looked great.  There was good 3D depth.  The in-your-face factor, was however, disappointing.  If I did not already know it, I would guess that this was an early 3D film and the film makers were fumbling around while learning the craft.  I thought it particularly bothersome when the projecting surgical instruments would just disappear as a cut was made.

 

I was surprised how much I disliked the film in general, even after being prepared for the fact that this was not a top film noir.  I wouldn't even give this film credit for being mid-level.  I'd give it a C- and I'm being generous at that.  The acting was generally mediocre or poor.  Even a top actor like Edmund O'Brien didn't do that well.  This movie was so light weight that the script must have been written on tissue paper.

 

I know it was shot in a hurry, but I'm just judging what I saw on the screen.  Just not much there.  Had the 3D projections been better, I don't think I would have liked it any better.

 

All IMHO of course.


Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#23 of 27 OFFLINE   Keith Cobby

Keith Cobby

    Screenwriter



  • 1,042 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2013
  • Real Name:Keith Cobby
  • LocationKent "The Garden of England", UK

Posted February 21 2014 - 02:13 AM

The Mad Magician next please.



#24 of 27 OFFLINE   davidHartzog

davidHartzog

    Supporting Actor



  • 683 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 17 2004
  • Real Name:David Hartzog
  • Locationupstate NY

Posted February 21 2014 - 04:02 AM

Man in the Dark is a pretty awful film, and certainly not representive of good noir.A gimmick like 3d doesn't help.
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

#25 of 27 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter



  • 2,982 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted March 02 2014 - 11:07 PM

I had a lot of fun with this… it kinda pushed the limits of what my 3D TV can do, so there was a little ghosting and whatnot, but I think that was absolutely my equipment as opposed to a disc problem.  The movie itself - not exactly mind-blowing, but a fun b-movie nonetheless.  I don't think this was shown at the Film Forum in NYC a few years ago when they ran a three week marathon of 50s 3D titles in dual 35mm, but it would have fit right in with a lot of the titles shown then.  Well worth the $30 - hope Twilight Time keeps the vintage 3D coming!



#26 of 27 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,566 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted April 08 2014 - 06:33 AM

Just finished watching Man In The Dark.

 

 

 

However, as far as forward projection is concerned, it fails for me.  

 

There are a few blatant attempts to move objects outwards at the audience.  They include

things like surgical tools and a lit cigar.  However, the objects never really seemed to break

the confines of the screen, and in an attempt to do so, became too blurred to have any

profound effect on the viewer.  Faces of characters seem to poke themselves outwards more

effectively than the objects that are purposely lunged forward.

 

The only reason I am harping on this, is because someone in another thread was raving

about the "In Yo' Face" aspect of Man In The Dark.  Sorry...it just wasn't that good, or at

least, as effective as it should have been.

 

Watched it last night. The in-your-face scenes worked fine for me. I could reach out and touch them. I freeze-framed them and they all looked fine except for the spider which was a bit blurry. The 1.33:1 image is 93 by 70 inches from my Panasonic AE8000 front projector. I sit about 14 feet from the wall - no screen and it looks great!


Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#27 of 27 OFFLINE   Keith Cobby

Keith Cobby

    Screenwriter



  • 1,042 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2013
  • Real Name:Keith Cobby
  • LocationKent "The Garden of England", UK

Posted March 11 2015 - 11:15 AM

I cannot decide whether to get this. I have seen the film (it has its merits but is not a great film) but do not expect to have 3-D capability until next year. How does the image quality compare with The Big Heat which is my benchmark for a b & w blu-ray from TT.

 

I now have a 3-D projector and gave this a spin today. Although the film itself doesn't improve on a second viewing I was surprised by how much more I enjoyed it in 3-D. To answer my own question it compares very well with The Big Heat.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 3D Blu-ray Reviews, Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, Sony Pictures, Twilight Time

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users