Yea, I watched this film. And maybe it was the intention to heighten the fear of suspense of never seeing the monster. But dear god we couldn't even see regular conversational scenes. The lighting in this film was virtually non-existent and I could not tell what the hell was going on.
shareYeah, tht bothered me too. Usually a good way to hide and obscure shoddy special effects and stunts or just keep it off camera till the end for the big surprise climax. Would have been nice to have more lighting in the movie overall.
shareThat's Peter Hyams for you--he photographs his own films and usually isn't afraid of dim light, and arguably overdid it with this one.
I've got to admit I'm curious to see what the Blu-ray looks like. It's never gotten a decent home video release by today's standards (I've only seen it on laserdisc myself and the DVD is a direct copy of that master) and maybe better detail would help things out. I can't even imagine how bad the VHS looked; this is exactly the kind of lighting scheme that gets blurred out to nothing on videotape.
The Blu-ray quality is nothing special. It probably would look exactly the same with an upconverted DVD. Nevertheless, I'm glad the film is back in print.
shareI can see why most people don't like how this film is lit but it never bothered me to be honest, if watched in total darkness on a well calibrated display it looks fine.
Plus it adds lots of mood to the movie.
If you expect the unexpected doesn't the unexpected then become the expected?
I finally got the Blu-ray and actually I disagree. It's as dark as always (that annoyed the hell out of my viewing partner, though he had fun otherwise), but I thought the transfer was pretty excellent, very sharp. Definitely don't regret picking it up!
share[deleted]
I saw this movie in the theater when it was first released. It was dark in the museum scenes, but I don't remember the outdoor scenes being as dark as they are on the DVD & Blu-Ray. I mean even the early scenes at the shipyard and when Penelope Anne Miller arrives at work were not as dark in the theater version.
I also remember being actually able to see the creature in detail once it was revealed in full. It was revealed pretty well when it takes out the S.W.A.T. team. I especially loved the way it looked and walked in the scene where it walks around the steel steps and proceeds to walk up looking for Miller.
I'm not sure if Lionsgate just cleaned up the copy that Paramount originally released on DVD for their Blu-Ray, but I do remember being able to see more detail even in the darkest scenes in the theater.
Ditto. I loved this movie when I first saw it during its theatrical run. Then came the often blurry and all-too-dark LaserDisc and DVD releases. I hoped the Blu Ray would make it better but it didn't. The master used for home video is SIMPLY TOO MURKY AND DARK. I distinctly remember the scene (at 39:59) when we first get to see a glimpse of Kothoga (originally Mbwun in the novel) in the sub-basement of the museum and running up the stairs and in theaters you could actually SEE the beast running wherein the home video editions (including Blu Ray) you just see tons of shadows and you only HEAR the beast. I wish Paramount would remaster this and could yield a more accurate release where they could reproduce the theaters true clarity (which,true,was already extremely dark to begin with)and give us fans of this movie the definitive edition.
shareThis film is beautifully lit by Peter Hyams. The DVD sucks, but theatrically and on Blu Ray, it's still one of the best looking films photographed in the 90's.
"Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"
They were just following the book. If you have read it, then you would know that the most of the time everything was barely lit, especially the climax.
shareIMO, it doesn't matter at all what happens in the book, it's what works in the medium the story is transferred to. I haven't seen this on a big screen or on Blue Ray, but as a TV broadcast, its dim lighting was unbelievably annoying.
shareI recently got the blu ray. Before that I only had it on vhs. It looks darker than I remember it, but that could be because I haven't seen it in several years. The dim lighting does take some getting used to though.
shareDefinitely too dark. Hard to see much of anything at times.
shareI just picked up a copy of the laserdisc. It's much easier o make out details on the laserdisc. The blu-ray is much darker, to the point where details are lost. It's something that can't really be fixed by ramping up the brightness either.
I think something went wrong with this film on home video from the VHS/laserdisc era to the dvd/blu-ray transfers.
If you want to see the highest possible definition, pick up the blu-ray. If you want to actually see what's going on in the film in general, check out the laserdisc, if at all possible.
On the otherhand, the poor lighting somewhat disguises the mediocre CGI.
I remember having to turn the brightness all the way up when I last saw it on TV.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
I would love to see a remake of this movie with better lighting. I love the whole idea of this movie but the director sucks butt. I watch a movie to see it not be in the total dark through out the whole thing. Its the darkest movie I have ever seen.
shareIs it darker than AVP:Requiem? What a waste of creature effects that was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you all aware the makers of TVs stuff the pictures up with their presets which black out half the picture?
Putting brightness up, and I mean a lot - which means contrast down so it isn't even more over-over bright - will ensure you see all shadow-detail there is.
You'll be surprised when you test and correct this, on various scenes, day or night.
The black letterbox bars must become lighter than black to ensure it.
[deleted]
The Descent was a very, very dark film. It was supposed to be, it was set way under the earth's surface. There is no light other than the flashlights and torches. However, everything that you NEEDED to see, was visible. It was very effective lighting.
Aliens vs Predator: Requiem seems to have been darkened after it was shot. If you look at the trailers, it was lit a lot brighter and the creatures looked great. Not sure why they decided to darken the image the way they did.
As for The Relic, I saw it in the theater when it was first released, it was dark but like The Descent, you were able to see the important things the director intended you to see. It just looks like Paramount did not restore the DVD and Lionsgate did not upgrade the blu-ray to hi-def standards.
I'm watching this on DVD right now and came here to see if it was just me. Ha! I got the room pitch black and I can still barely see what's going on.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"
Watched it in nighttime and didn't bother me at all. Blu-ray probably helps, because the presumption that the lightning was supposedly badly done, never occured to me. Nothing in the likes of AvP: Requiem and so on.
I loved this movie, Winston's special effects and Sizemore's film-noir-esque detective made it an enjoyable watch. Why the hell it's only a 5.5 is a mystery to me.
The overall lighting is way too dark. Even outside or typically well lit rooms it is dark. Really makes it difficult to watch.
shareWatching it now on HBO in HD on my Plasma. It looks alright to me. I don't remember any issues when I saw it in theaters in '97 as a kid. A truly horribly lit film is "Alien vs. Predator Requiem".
share