A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Crush -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

If Alan Shapiro's The Crush is any reference, one of the most problematic things for a young male in his twenties becomes the target of a crush by a young teen girl.

In this case, getting rid of Alicia Silverstone's Adrian won't be a simple "you're a sweet kid, and very cute, but a little young..."

Not when sweet little Adrian won't take no for an answer, and has a slight streak of insanity.

The Crush is another film that's taken a long time to make the transition from DVD. In fact, it's taken two years longer than Adrian's age in the film.

Taking a very different perspective as opposed to sweet Patty McCormack's Rhoda Penmark, in the 1956 thriller, The Bad Seed, Ms Silverstone's character has hormones in full bloom, creating one of the more troublesome teen roles of the era.

An interesting set-piece (Adrian's father, played by Kurwood Smith, is restoring an old carousel in the attic, which allows a major homage to Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, almost duplicating certain shots.

A beautiful Blu-ray presentation from Scream Factory.

Image - 4.5

Audio - 5

4k Up-rez - 4.5

Pass / Fail - Pass

RAH

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

Good Day RAH. Excellent write-up on this title.

I actually have had The Crush (1993) in my Amazon cart for awhile here but its a little far down the priority list with a big cruise coming up in November. But this title does draw my interest because from time to time (from my 19 y/o USMC days thru my early 30s (as a USAF officer), I've had to deal with teen crushes (not to be conceited but I got my mom's "youth gene" which kept me kinda young looking up thru my 40s & early 50s (I still have a head full of hair and no gray)). One such blonde-hair/blue eye teen cutie from my church in Nebraska (when I was at SAC-Offutt AFB as a USAF officer) made it rather clear she wanted to get my then-wife out of the way (but not to the extent of this movie) and take over (I was 31 at the time). And I thought up to that time that teen crushes would vanish when I hit my 30s and left my college days behind.

Nowadays though I'm happily married (second and pray to God, final marriage) so that phase of life is over. But when I had my "hot-rod" 99 Mustang Cobra convertible, I still had girls walking up to us in my car to say what a cool car I had. Wish I had that car when I was 18-19.

Anyway I might check this film out a little later on, have never seen it.

Oh and you mentioned the 1956 version of The Bad Seed. I've never seen that version but I did catch the 1985 remake on TV (which had a much more shocking ending). That version is available on DVD.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

A "5" for audio? When the studio themselves acknowledge they were forced to use a flawed track?

I thought the movie's audio was awful - even by 1993 standards, it was terrible...

 

[Robert Harris]

A "5" for audio? When the studio themselves acknowledge they were forced to use a flawed track?

I thought the movie's audio was awful - even by 1993 standards, it was terrible...

I had no problems with reproduction. Could be my setup. And listening for any major problems.

If the original was problematic, and is reproduced properly, it can still earn high grades.

Reference the "ghost on the stairs" in My Fair Lady. Problematic from day one.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I had no problems with reproduction. Could be my setup. And listening for any major problems.

If the original was problematic, and is reproduced properly, it can still earn high grades.

Reference the "ghost on the stairs" in My Fair Lady. Problematic from day one.

But it's not the original that's problematic - the issue is that Shout! was unable to locate the original so they had to use a copy with a self-admitted "phasing issue".

It's a really wonky track. To each his own, of course, but I'm surprised you gave it a "3", much less a "5" - that's like saying it's as good a mix as "Jurassic Park", a track from 1993 that's held up well!

 

[Robert Harris]

But it's not the original that's problematic - the issue is that Shout! was unable to locate the original so they had to use a copy with a self-admitted "phasing issue".

It's a really wonky track. To each his own, of course, but I'm surprised you gave it a "3", much less a "5" - that's like saying it's as good a mix as "Jurassic Park", a track from 1993 that's held up well!

I doubt that Shout Has anything to do with locating tracks.

 

[Robert Harris]

But it's not the original that's problematic - the issue is that Shout! was unable to locate the original so they had to use a copy with a self-admitted "phasing issue".

It's a really wonky track. To each his own, of course, but I'm surprised you gave it a "3", much less a "5" - that's like saying it's as good a mix as "Jurassic Park", a track from 1993 that's held up well!

I probably listened to 30 minutes of track.

If you can give me time code, for what you feel are the most agretious passages, I can revisit.

Are you hearing problems specifically in m, fx, or dx, or combined?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I probably listened to 30 minutes of track.

If you can give me time code, for what you feel are the most agretious passages, I can revisit.

Are you hearing problems specifically in m, fx, or dx, or combined?

What I wrote in my review:


"The soundscape itself seemed out of whack. Music spread across all five channels without any sense of balance, and effects often threatened to overwhelm the other factors.

This became especially true when the movie presented elements that should’ve stayed in the background. Take a scene at Nick’s office: footsteps that should offer minor embellishment became a loud distraction from the surrounds. Similar problems came from waves at the beach: where they should’ve been minor ambience, instead they dominated.

Localization seemed poor. As noted, the surrounds played too prominent a role, and elements in the forward channels failed to show accurate placement. None of the components provided material that appeared to come from anywhere in specific; it all turned into a fairly broad mush.

Even worse, audio quality showed significant issues. Bass response remained loud and dense, without any distinction. Speech was sibilant and unnatural; intelligibility wasn’t usually a concern, but I still turned on subtitles for good measure. The lines tended to be awfully rough.

Music was both too thin and too boomy, which I didn’t think was possible. The score and songs boasted edgy high-end along with that loose, ill-defined bass.

Effects came with the same problems. Those components sounded distorted and harsh throughout the film, and they never appeared accurate. Again, I don’t know how many of the mix’s problems came from the source or from the phasing issues, but the end result sounded terrible, especially given the relatively “modern” nature of the film"

 

[Robert Harris]

What I wrote in my review:


"The soundscape itself seemed out of whack. Music spread across all five channels without any sense of balance, and effects often threatened to overwhelm the other factors.

This became especially true when the movie presented elements that should’ve stayed in the background. Take a scene at Nick’s office: footsteps that should offer minor embellishment became a loud distraction from the surrounds. Similar problems came from waves at the beach: where they should’ve been minor ambience, instead they dominated.

Localization seemed poor. As noted, the surrounds played too prominent a role, and elements in the forward channels failed to show accurate placement. None of the components provided material that appeared to come from anywhere in specific; it all turned into a fairly broad mush.

Even worse, audio quality showed significant issues. Bass response remained loud and dense, without any distinction. Speech was sibilant and unnatural; intelligibility wasn’t usually a concern, but I still turned on subtitles for good measure. The lines tended to be awfully rough.

Music was both too thin and too boomy, which I didn’t think was possible. The score and songs boasted edgy high-end along with that loose, ill-defined bass.

Effects came with the same problems. Those components sounded distorted and harsh throughout the film, and they never appeared accurate. Again, I don’t know how many of the mix’s problems came from the source or from the phasing issues, but the end result sounded terrible, especially given the relatively “modern” nature of the film"

Phasing issues, and yes, I did note the warning at the outset, don't sound like what you're hearing.

From your comments, it almost sounds as if someone took the original stems and tried to create something new or "better" from them.

On a laptop, and failed.

I'll return to this one and re-sample, with your comments at hand.

Checking the audio credits, I'm finding top people, so it shouldn't be the original mix.

 

[Robert Harris]

Rechecked. I realized that initial height channels were actuated, which may or may not have had an affect.

In straight 5.1, mx seemed to surround, occasionally going to rears. Fx occasionally hot, but nothing that may not be a part of the original stereo design.

Made note of the Foley, walking up wooden stairs, expecting a possible phasing problem, but nothing that stood out.

I'm not having problems.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I was wondering how this wound up with Shout! Factory, as I recalled it having been released theatrically and on VHS and DVD by Warner. Then I checked the production credits and saw that it was a Morgan Creek production. I wonder no longer.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Rechecked. I realized that initial height channels were actuated, which may or may not have had an affect.

In straight 5.1, mx seemed to surround, occasionally going to rears. Fx occasionally hot, but nothing that may not be a part of the original stereo design.

Made note of the Foley, walking up wooden stairs, expecting a possible phasing problem, but nothing that stood out.

I'm not having problems.

I don't profess to have your level of knowledge/background, of course, and in my original review, I didn't formally blame the phasing issue.

But I can make one super-scientific observation about the soundtrack:

It sounds like poop!

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't profess to have your level of knowledge/background, of course, and in my original review, I didn't formally blame the phasing issue.

But I can make one super-scientific observation about the soundtrack:

It sounds like poop!

I can't honestly claim to know what that sounds like.

It's definitely a bit odd, but nothing that I'd be concerned about.

Especially with the warning at the head.

If something is there, I'm not hearing it with my player, decoder, system.

I also don't doubt that you you're hearing something.

What are you using for playback? Any chance that a button might have been inadvertently hit?

Strange that I'm also not hearing phasing.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I can't honestly claim to know what that sounds like.

It's definitely a bit odd, but nothing that I'd be concerned about.

Especially with the warning at the head.

If something is there, I'm not hearing it with my player, decoder, system.

I also don't doubt that you you're hearing something.

What are you using for playback? Any chance that a button might have been inadvertently hit?

Strange that I'm also not hearing phasing.

No, no chance of an accidental button-push! Everything's the same as it always is for my system!

For what it's worth, this viewer heard the same problems I did, so at least this shows it's not just me!

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/31138/thecrush.html

 

[Robert Harris]

No, no chance of an accidental button-push! Everything's the same as it always is for my system!

For what it's worth, this viewer heard the same problems I did, so at least this shows it's not just me!

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/31138/thecrush.html

Interesting review. Not quite certain what "film grain pushed to the background" might be.

The writer has a good grasp of film and elements, as do some of the other reviewers over at HDD.

As to the audio, I've consulted with with professionals, and it appears that their may be some sort of mass hysteria, based upon the warning card.

This occurs often after viewers read the non-liability cards regarding opinions not being those of the studio. Folks start hearing secret meanings in the most basic comments, such as "she was always a pleasure to work with, always on time and professional." Or, "he'd make us do take after take, until we were exhausted, and then make us go another twenty times. It's why everyone loved our director." Or, "what a thrill for the entire company to be shooting in North Korea, where we had the full cooperation of their extraordinarily friendly leadership..."

That's it. Mass hysteria.

By the way, and in regards to the review's comment about the potential need for stabilization in the main and end titles, there's an ethical question, as the movement is built into the dupes, and becomes more obvious to viewers without projection bob and weave.

Should something that's always been a part of the film be removed, with the potential resultant loss of the edges of the frame, due to processing?

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Warner no longer owns the Morgan Creek (or Regency) titles they used to, so these have their logo chopped off the beginning. The girl's name was changed in this version for legal reasons also.

 

[Robert Harris]

Warner no longer owns the Morgan Creek (or Regency) titles they used to, so these have their logo chopped off the beginning. The girl's name was changed in this version for legal reasons also.

Warner logo chopped off?