UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Lost Boys -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I wish I could tell readers precisely what I'm seeing on Warner's new 4k UHD of Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys, but I'm not certain.

I can tell you that back in the summer of 1987, the negative was of high enough quality to be used for 70mm blow-ups, along with 6-track.

This disc is startlingly beautiful.

Color, black levels, shadow detail and grain structure all appear normal, although I was wondering if there might have been a tiny bit of grain manipulation. If there was, it doesn't stick out as problematic.

What has me questioning slightly what I'm seeing is the overall resolution, which in many shots appears to be either large format, or appearing more akin to a recent digital capture - which it is not.

The film was shot in Panavision with E-series anamorphic optics, and looks better than one might surmise.

This isn't a bad thing, and it's possible that the glass and exposures were just that good. As far as grain, it becomes more noticeable in darker shots, ie a thinner negative, but when fully exposed, the appearance is absolutely miraculous.

As this is not an Academy Award winning Best Picture, there is no need to precisely mimic the appearance of original prints, but it's possible that that is what's occurring here.

Zero problems. Zero regrets.

This is reference quality 4k, derived from a 35mm anamorphic source.

As an aside, for those seeking a film looking into the back-story of Peter's lost boys, you've got the wrong film. Best to keep away from small children.

Final point for slipcover collectors - we have numismatists, philatelists - must be a tech term for slipcover collectors - since this is printed on foil, it's a very good looking piece of art, and may only be for the first edition. Could be huge prices coming on eBay.

Image – 5 (HDR)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Without a doubt

Highly Recommended

RAH

 

[Blu Eye]

Thank you for this review, Robert.

As an early year millennial (1982) this movie was a favourite growing up.

I have not seen this movie for well over 15 years at least and I have put off buying the blu ray for a while in anticipation of a 4k release.

Looking forward to buying this and revisiting the movie after a long while to see how it holds up.

One is presuming it is a good time capsule of 80s America haircuts and all (mullets especially).

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Cover art looks like a literal Disney Peter Pan reference and has nothing to do with this film. The original art should have been used and features those classic haircuts! WB new release of Poltergeist also has horrendous cover art and again the original's was classic.
And why no Dolby Vision? I wish this format's encoding inconsistency would end.

 

[madfloyd]

I appreciate your review, Robert. I bought this as well and while I've only checked out the first 10 minutes, I was very happy with it.

 

[tsodcollector]

I have to put this on my dvd list,it's a 80's classic.

 

[white vader]

Cover art looks like a literal Disney Peter Pan reference and has nothing to do with this film. The original art should have been used and features those classic haircuts! WB new release of Poltergeist also has horrendous cover art and again the original's was classic.
And why no Dolby Vision? I wish this format's encoding inconsistency would end.

All respect to Robert (really looking forward to getting it), I have to agree the cover art is horrible, just like Poltergeist. Foil doesn't mean much to me as mostly it's done cheaply and not using a fifth colour in the printing process. And yes on DV. Though I suspect many of us here have reasonably high end TVs, consistency would be nice as you say.

Having had way too much to do with marketing over the years, I understand the reason for the lousy new art and it's a pretty simple one - when a title has had numerous releases, yet another needs a way to distinguish itself so both retailers and customers know it's not the same old transfer/why they're paying top bucks. And 99% of people wouldn't check a barcode for that. I'm in Australia and no matter the artwork we always get a gigantic ratings logo slathered over it regardless - despite them having no problem/spending with stickers or slipcases where that logo/info could go without besmirching the actual cover.

But, they could always do what some of the niche labels do and make it double-sided with the original art/poster art on the reverse. Everyone would be happy.

But the most important thing of course is a good transfer and encode. The play's the thing after all. It just bugs me as it seems so easily avoidable! Looking forward to seeing Sax Man in all his glory. And can't wait for Poltergeist 4k!

 

[dpippel]

Cover art looks like a literal Disney Peter Pan reference and has nothing to do with this film.

Did you miss the scene in the film that the cover art is based on? You may not like it (I'm not a fan either), but it certainly does reference an actual part of the movie.

 

[Malcolm R]

My only real issue with the cover art is the generic red font for the title. Why didn't they use the stylized title design that's on every other release?

 

[dpippel]

"One thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach - all the damn vampires."

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Did you miss the scene in the film that the cover art is based on? You may not like it (I'm not a fan either), but it certainly does reference an actual part of the movie.

I haven’t seen it in years and my copy arrives this weekend so I will look for it. I believe you that’s it’s there so my bad for thinking it’s not. But the original is classic. This trend to redo with new art is mostly a miss for me. And there are other ways to show the orginal art ie different border, show the by line (or whatever the writing it called at the top), etc like this. I also like the steelbook’s cover which is like a combo of both.

 

[tsodcollector]

It has a combination of comedy/horror,it's a 80's cult movie that has lasted for over 4 decades since it's 1987 release.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It has a combination of comedy/horror,it's a 80's cult movie that has lasted for over 4 decades since it's 1987 release.

2022-1987 = 35 = 3 decades.

 

[dpippel]

2022-1987 = 35 = 3 decades.

It was released on 7/31/1987, so if you round up it's been four decades.

 

[B-ROLL]

It was released on 7/31/1987, so if you round up it's been four decades.

Some people don't know about the "new math(s)" ... numbers greater than ending in 5 can be rounded up:
Per The Google:
How do you round off numbers ending in 5?

If the smallest place digit is greater than or equal to 5, then round up the digit. Since the digit in the smallest place is less than 5, a round down has to be done and also the digit remains unchanged.

(Unless you're a Hollywood starlet and then you round down and take off ten years )

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It was released on 7/31/1987, so if you round up it's been four decades.

Ah, but the post to which I replied stated it'd been more than 4 decades.

 

[dpippel]

Ah, but the post to which I replied stated it'd been more than 4 decades.

Ah, but YOU stated it's only been 3, so you're both wrong!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Ah, but YOU stated it's only been 3, so you're both wrong!

 

[Kent K H]

So I guess it's safe to say that Robert still believes.

 

[Malcolm R]

I bet the hips still work, too.

 

[Blu_rayfan66]

"One thing about living in Santa Clara I never could stomach - all the damn vampires."

...you mean Santa CARLA*