What's new

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,551
Real Name
Robert Harris
Between the release of 48 Hrs. in 1982 and Another 48 Hrs. eight years hence, the world changed as Eddie Murphy, who had second billing in 1982 suddenly became a cottage industry after Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, giving Mr. Murphy top billing in the sequel, produced by his production company.

Both directed by Walter Hill, they stand the test of time rather well, even with bad dudes at the center of the fray being a bit cardboardish.

Both films are represented as "comedies," but with more blood that one if apt to find in most others of the genre.

Both have had new scans and look terrific via Paramount's Presents series - these herein numbers 19 and 20, a concept apparently borrowed from Anchor Bay.

Both films look crisp and clean, with nice black levels, quality color and densities, and enough grain to keep those who love the concept happy.

Personally, I don't care if a modern film has grain or not, as long as it's pretty, and reasonably represents the original look.

Tracks are beautifully modulated 5.1 Dolby TrueHD, and will fill your proscenium.

Nice release.

Zero complaints.


Image – 5

Audio – 5 (5.1 Dolby TrueHD)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD and earlier Blu-ray - Yes

Recommended

RAH
 

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
218
Real Name
Carl
Looking forward to revisiting this film.

Not seen it for over a decade but really enjoyed it and as a millennial I am a sucker for 80s films.

I refrained from purchasing the previous BD release as I was put off by all the unfavourable reviews.

But as this release has the RAH stamp of approval it's a thumbs up from me. :thumbsup:
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,118
RAH, you didn't suspect noise reduction on the 1982 film?

I saw some grain but it seemed awfully light for a 1982 movie shot in so many dark locations!
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,551
Real Name
Robert Harris
RAH, you didn't suspect noise reduction on the 1982 film?

I saw some grain but it seemed awfully light for a 1982 movie shot in so many dark locations!
Grain was more natural in shots with less exposure.

It’s become virtually impossible today, with all of the digital tools to ascertain whether grain has been maneuvered - unless you know the film.

If a film that I know appears disturbingly wrong, I’ll mention a problem.

If not…

These fulfill their purpose.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Premium
Ambassador
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
21,920
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
I haven’t rewatch the second one but did watch the first a few months ago and for me it does not hold up or stand the test of time.

Its horribly dated and extremely high in bad racist content.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,118
Grain was more natural in shots with less exposure.

It’s become virtually impossible today, with all of the digital tools to ascertain whether grain has been maneuvered - unless you know the film.

If a film that I know appears disturbingly wrong, I’ll mention a problem.

If not…

These fulfill their purpose.

I was tentative in my opinion of noise reduction with the 1982 film. (Haven't watched the sequel yet.)

If there's NR, it's not overwhelming, to be sure.

I just found it tough to discern much grain period, and it simply didn't "feel right" to me.

Agree that it's really tough to gauge the use of NR unless you're intensely familiar with how the film should look or it's egregious.

I still feel like the 1982 film just looks a little too "cleaned up" given its age and genre. But I could be wrong!
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,118
I haven’t rewatch the second one but did watch the first a few months ago and for me it does not hold up or stand the test of time.

Its horribly dated and extremely high in bad racist content.

I think aspects of the movie fare poorly due to non-PC content - can't argue that.

On the other hand, the way Jack casually throws out racist comments was realistic - that's how a character like that would've talked.

Jack does apologize - and notably, Reggie doesn't really let him off the hook. He doesn't offer some "it's all good" comment after Jack's mea culpa.

Parts of the movie work very well still, IMO, but it's also very much of its time in other ways...
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,551
Real Name
Robert Harris
I was tentative in my opinion of noise reduction with the 1982 film. (Haven't watched the sequel yet.)

If there's NR, it's not overwhelming, to be sure.

I just found it tough to discern much grain period, and it simply didn't "feel right" to me.

Agree that it's really tough to gauge the use of NR unless you're intensely familiar with how the film should look or it's egregious.

I still feel like the 1982 film just looks a little too "cleaned up" given its age and genre. But I could be wrong!
I can‘t disagree. Mostly in bright, outdoor shots, where the neg would be heavier.

It just doesn’t matter enough to me to give it much thought, as it looks fine from a nominal seating distance.
 

Sam Favate

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
10,488
Real Name
Sam Favate
Are these separate releases? Or included in the same package?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,551
Real Name
Robert Harris
When this forum started in 1997, would you have considered LOA released in 1962, a modern film?
I would not. It’s less about years and more about negative / duplicating stocks, their longevity, wear and tear, and how they are used.

example: LoA OCN probably run 150 times, plus.

48 Hrs. OCN possibly run 12 times, if that - daily rolls, cut & conformed color timing, a few premiere prints, sep masters, IP.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
55,645
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I would not. It’s less about years and more about negative / duplicating stocks, their longevity, wear and tear, and how they are used.

example: LoA OCN probably run 150 times, plus.

48 Hrs. OCN possibly run 12 times, if that - daily rolls, cut & conformed color timing, a few premiere prints, sep masters, IP.
Alright than you're looking at these films from a perspective that's probably quite different than many of us. Got it!
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,017
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
I would not. It’s less about years and more about negative / duplicating stocks, their longevity, wear and tear, and how they are used.

example: LoA OCN probably run 150 times, plus.

48 Hrs. OCN possibly run 12 times, if that - daily rolls, cut & conformed color timing, a few premiere prints, sep masters, IP.

I see, they're "modern" in the sense of the processes used to produce and duplicate the elements, as opposed to the "classic" or "vintage" methods.

Perhaps another term is needed, though, as I would think "modern" production would be mostly if not entirely digital.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,118
I see, they're "modern" in the sense of the processes used to produce and duplicate the elements, as opposed to the "classic" or "vintage" methods.

Perhaps another term is needed, though, as I would think "modern" production would be mostly if not entirely digital.

This reminds me of the running MCU gag where Peter Parker refers to 80s movies like "Empire Strikes Back" and "Aliens" as "old movies".

To those of us who were in our teens in the 80s, we view them as "modern movies".

To someone in his/her teens now, they're "old movies".

Crud, today:"Empire" = 1980:"Gone With the Wind"!

Funny thing is that I don't think people who were teens in 1939 viewed "GWTW" as a "modern movie" the same way those of us who were kids in 1980 still think of "ESB" as "modern".

I can't really explain this!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,771
Messages
4,856,997
Members
142,379
Latest member
Randy Wicker
Recent bookmarks
0
Top