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

[Robert Harris]

The original 1937 Topper, directed by Norman McLeod, is a charming fantasy, based upon the work of Thorne Smith.

It spawned sequels and a TV series.

A sweet crowd-pleaser of a film, Topper is offered to us on Blu-ray via VCI, and I wanted very much to like it.

Having tried it on two totally different setups, I find myself unsuccessful.

While the film has been "digitally restored," I'm seeing far too much digital, especially on an LCD panel, and not enough restored. Anomalies abound, but if one doesn't look too closely, or softens focus, just a bit, things should be fine.

Sync also seems to be a problem.

Terrific film. Less than acceptable offering.

Image - 3

Audio - 4

Pass / Fail - Fail

RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well I have to disagree with RAH here. I thought this Blu-ray was a big improvement over the previously released DVD. I'm not saying it's to Warner Archive or Sony's standards, but I think most of us will be happy with it. I was actually more impressed with it after I again watched the DVD for about 30-35 minutes.

 

[ahollis]

I watched it with friends last night and did not find any sync problems, but it did seem to be scrubbed a little to much.

 

[deepscan]

RAH, is this an authorized release? Because I understand Sonar/Hallmark owns the film negative rights, and I saw the UCLA restored version years back on TCM.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH, is this an authorized release? Because I understand Sonar/Hallmark owns the film negative rights, and I saw the UCLA restored version years back on TCM.

I do believe this is a legit version.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I watched it with friends last night and did not find any sync problems, but it did seem to be scrubbed a little to much.

I would agree with that assessment that it was scrubbed a little too much.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well I have to disagree with RAH here. I thought this Blu-ray was a big improvement over the previously released DVD. I'm not saying it's to Warner Archive or Sony's standards, but I think most of us will be happy with it. I was actually more impressed with it after I again watched the DVD for about 30-35 minutes.

I see that RAH has changed his image grade from 2.5 to 3.0 which I don't have as much of a problem with now. I'll give it a 3.25-3.5 grade.

 

[Tony Bensley]

RAH, is this an authorized release? Because I understand Sonar/Hallmark owns the film negative rights, and I saw the UCLA restored version years back on TCM.

I do believe this is a legit version.

VCI currently has an arrangement with Sprocket Vault, who in turn, currently have the necessary rights in place for at least some of the Hal Roach film library, including an upcoming Charley Chase 1930-31 sound short DVD volume 1 set.

CHEERS!

 

[Robert Harris]

I see that RAH has changed his image grade from 2.5 to 3.0 which I don't have as much of a problem with now. I'll give it a 3.25-3.5 grade.

I took another look, on two setups. Projection was acceptable aside from sync, which is adaptable. On an LCD, the terrors came to the fore. Appears to be auto-clean.

Take a look at the dissolve outside the bank, and watch carefully as things disappear.

 

[Robert Harris]

I took another look, on two setups. Projection was acceptable aside from sync, which is adaptable. On an LCD, the terrors came to the fore. Appears to be auto-clean.

Take a look at the dissolve outside the bank, and watch carefully as things disappear.

And then there's Roland Young's shower, with the digital world attempting to keep up with water drops.

 

[Konstantinos]

That is disappointing.
Do you mean there is no filmic grain in the transfer and it's heavily DNRed?

 

[Robert Harris]

That is disappointing.
Do you mean there is no filmic grain in the transfer and it's heavily DNRed?

To be perfectly honest, I’m a bit puzzled by what I’m seeing. Final result may be fine for the average viewer, but something’s amiss for a 2017 release.

 

[david hare]

I gave ity a 2. It looks bloody awful. Typical VCI scrubberama. The source looks (might have been) clean with reasonable black level. But who would know. This is as horrible as their scrubbed White Zombie.

 

[Robin9]

I gave it a 2. It looks bloody awful. Typical VCI scrubberama. The source looks (might have been) clean with reasonable black level. But who would know. This is as horrible as their scrubbed White Zombie.

That settles it. I'm not buying.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I took another look, on two setups. Projection was acceptable aside from sync, which is adaptable. On an LCD, the terrors came to the fore. Appears to be auto-clean.

Take a look at the dissolve outside the bank, and watch carefully as things disappear.

And then there's Roland Young's shower, with the digital world attempting to keep up with water drops.

I'll revisit this Blu-ray again later today after I get some sleep. I've been up most of the night watching other movies.

 

[PMF]

With all of the accessible advancements in technology, I wonder why any group bothers to release a title without displaying some gallant efforts towards visual improvements. Yes, there are the arguments that having something available on BD is better than not.
But based on these posts, VCI may need to regroup and take another approach.

 

[warnerbro]

I absolutely love this film and I have been watching this blu ray non-stop for two weeks. It seems that the whites bloom and bleed blindingly. I did seem to notice places where the dialogue was out of sync, but on the whole this is so much better than anything I've ever seen with this film, I'm glad to have it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I absolutely love this film and I have been watching this blu ray non-stop for two weeks. It seems that the whites bloom and bleed blindingly. I did seem to notice places where the dialogue was out of sync, but on the whole this is so much better than anything I've ever seen with this film, I'm glad to have it.

I have far less discernible eyes to video defects than RAH. Therefore, I took another look at this blu-ray this afternoon and though I recognize some of what RAH has stated, they didn't display themselves on my OLED that RAH has noted. As to the sync issues, I didn't notice anything that detracted from my enjoyment of the blu-ray.

 

[EManT2200]

Well, with RAH saying that projection is acceptable (which is how I will be watching it), and Robert Crawford's statements, I think I am going to give this a go anyway. I really want a blu of this film. I enjoy the movie and it sounds like it just might be worth it.

 

[TheSteig]

I just hope it looks better than the Artisan DVD as that's what its intended to replace. But it's VCI and as much as I love and appreciate the label , their Blu-rays are often sub-par , from both reviewers and collectors. This is not a knock on them but more of an observation.