What's with the Berry Blue Jello background? I know there's always room for jello but why is it there? It seems that hollywood has had a problem with original poster art. Why? The initial poster art of a movie is usually the best. And they keep replacing the original artwork with photoshop crap. So instead of the awesomeness of these...
We have the horribleness of these...
I'll say more on this in another entry.
Back to the review.
The release of Ghostbusters on Blu-Ray was incredibly disappointing to say the least. Not only did there seem to be no effort to clean up the picture but it looks worse than the DVD. I would imagine even people that don't like DNR would agree that this is in severe need of at least some. The reason why I hate the how grainy the picture is because it really makes gives the picture a very unnatural blotchy look that is not at all "cinematic". This is especially apparent with skin tones. Instead of seeing faces, it looks like a flesh colored doppler radar storm and what is supposed to be Walter Peck.
I'm not sure if it was Ivan Reitmans wish for the film to remain this way, but I can't imagine it would be a bad thing to go through a little cleaning up. On one hand it is an 80s movie and that was the era of cheap and crappy film stock. On the other hand it is a big special effects blockbuster, they could have thrown down a few extra bucks for better film stock. If thats the case than maybe a better master of this film exists? I can't imagine planning out that many optical effects and skimping out on the film quality.
While the special features are adequate they are nowhere near the level we come to expect with Blu-Ray. If they were, all those questions in the previous paragraph would have been answered by them. Ultimately, I can certainly understand why this movie is in the state that it is on Blu-Ray but at the same time it doesn't give me single reason to spend the extra money and re-purchase a movie already have on a perfectly satisfactory format.