A Few Words About A few words about...™ Kingsman: The Secret Service -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Further experimenting in the world of UHD, HDR and height channels, had me return to Kingsman, one of my favorite films of 2015.

What's different from an earlier viewing in on Blu-ray?

Quite a bit.

HDR adds not only another layer of imagery, but along with its raised contrast, adds a bit of perceived resolution, on top of the studio produced 2k to 4k uprez. It works nicely.

Audio is not Atmos, although the film was released as such, along with The Martian.

Decoding from the DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 films, via Neos:X, adds more audio, but without the discreet information, that one would have with Atmos.

A great disc, but I'd prefer with Atmos, now that the system is installed.

Image - 5

Audio - 4.5

4k - 5

Pass / Fail - Pass

Very Highly Recommended


RAH

 

[DavidMiller]

Hands down one of my top 5 4K HDR disks... I guess I need to go back through and rate them. I do wish that had included DTS:X or Atmos.

Actually I want to also say this is one of the disks that bring me to say this whole pew pew of 2K DI is total crap. I have watch it a couple times and I didn't see any artifacts. In the end I think it comes down to the quality and effort put into the creation of the disk. Hancock for example was very disappointing and felt like a waste of money and it came from a 4K DI.

 

[Mark-P]

Sorry to stray off topic, but why are so few films that were Atmos in theaters, presented as such on Blu-ray or UHD? Is it because Theatrical Atmos (62 maximum channels) is different than the home version (11 maximum channels) and it would be extra work to prepare?

 

[Robert Harris]

Sorry to stray off topic, but why are so few films that were Atmos in theaters, presented as such on Blu-ray or UHD? Is it because Theatrical Atmos (62 maximum channels) is different than the home version (11 maximum channels) and it would be extra work to prepare?

Looking into this.

 

[Douglas R]

I don't care how good KINGSMAN looks because I have no wish to ever see it ever again. A truly revolting, disgusting film. There, I've said it!

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't care how good KINGSMAN looks because I have no wish to ever see it ever again. A truly revolting, disgusting film. There, I've said it!

Are you a fan of Kickass?

 

[TravisR]

A truly revolting, disgusting film.

That was part of the fun of it.

 

[dpippel]

Indeed. The over-the-top ultra-violence coupled with the staid British spy flick aesthetic and droll, deadpan humor, (and let's NOT forget Colin Firth), are what made the film so much damned fun.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

My favorite ever one sentence TV guide-style synopsis was for this this movie: "The hero gets the girl in the end."

 

[Dave Moritz]

This is one of the movies I will be purchasing next month on UHD.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Sorry to stray off topic, but why are so few films that were Atmos in theaters, presented as such on Blu-ray or UHD? Is it because Theatrical Atmos (62 maximum channels) is different than the home version (11 maximum channels) and it would be extra work to prepare?

I guess that is one of the reasons. But Sony managed to add Atmos to all their first UHD titles and Fox managed to add Atmos or DTS:X to zero titles of their first wave. So It is rather a studio issue than an technical issue. Fox does not get my money till they get their audio act together. The explanation given in some interview was lame (we need more time to figure out where people have their speakers in their living room...). They had enough time as Atmos was on Blu Ray for over a year before UHD started.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Sorry to stray off topic, but why are so few films that were Atmos in theaters, presented as such on Blu-ray or UHD? Is it because Theatrical Atmos (62 maximum channels) is different than the home version (11 maximum channels) and it would be extra work to prepare?

Not only would I think it would be more costly to mix 62 channels or even 32 channels for home video. But it would IMHO be a waste as no more than a handfull of people would ever take there home theater to that extreme. And how many people that have home theaters or just surround sound set ups will go beyond 6 Atmos/ X channels? I do not see many people maxing out the 11 channel maximum so there is no real reason for studios to mix anywhere near the maximum.

 

[theonemacduff]

As for over-top-violence, yeah, the church scene was a little disturbing, but even as it was flashing by, I realized that the camera moves and the overall choreography were completely unreal, completely designed, so for me, that acted as a distancing effect, a hint from the movie-makers not to get too involved. Plus, if I remember correctly, there are no children in that scene, as there would be in a real church, so that too made it less than real. Or am I remembering incorrectly? Double plus: right afterwards, Firth "pays" for his crime, in a sense. I think also the general vibe of "the staid British spy flick aesthetic and droll, deadpan humor," also helped a lot in distancing the violence from the viewer. And always nice to see Luke Skywalker in a film, doing a wonderful sniveller impression. But whose over-the-top violence does one prefer? This stuff? Or Tarantino, whose films I generally like, but the violence of which I often find deeply upsetting.

 

[Robert Harris]

As for over-top-violence, yeah, the church scene was a little disturbing, but even as it was flashing by, I realized that the camera moves and the overall choreography were completely unreal, completely designed, so for me, that acted as a distancing effect, a hint from the movie-makers not to get too involved. Plus, if I remember correctly, there are no children in that scene, as there would be in a real church, so that too made it less than real. Or am I remembering incorrectly? Double plus: right afterwards, Firth "pays" for his crime, in a sense. I think also the general vibe of "the staid British spy flick aesthetic and droll, deadpan humor," also helped a lot in distancing the violence from the viewer. And always nice to see Luke Skywalker in a film, doing a wonderful sniveller impression. But whose over-the-top violence does one prefer? This stuff? Or Tarantino, whose films I generally like, but the violence of which I often find deeply upsetting.

Or Peckinpah?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I find that a lot of the stuff in Tarantino films is mean spirited, poorly thought out, idiotic and the work of somebody who is not particularly bright. In this film it seemed to be just meant to be fun/funny and intentionally ridiculous.

I still watch Tarantino's films but he seems to revel in cruelty and ugliness to an extent that I understand why some people dislike his work.

 

[DavidJ]

I would find this violence discussion fascinating and it may be worthy of its own thread.

 

[Dave Moritz]

This movie is slated to be purchased this month on UHD and I can not wait to rewatch it on the new format.

 

[Cranston37+]

This movie is slated to be purchased this month on UHD and I can not wait to rewatch it on the new format.

Don't forget about the 30% off FoxConnect deal that expires April 6 - you can get it for $18 shipped...