Zulu (Blu-ray SteelBook) (Play Exclusive) [United Kingdom]

Sep 1, 2011
81
Italy
http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/33734420/0/Zulu-Paramount-Centenary-Edition/ListingDetails.html
Release date: September 10th, 2012

33734420_500x500_2.jpg

33734420_500x500_3.jpg

33734420_500x500_4.jpg

Actual pics: (tx lgans316 to & zesty)
Zulu_UK_1.JPG

Zulu_UK_2.JPG

Zulu_UK_3.JPG

Zulu_UK_4.JPG


1da_21ceb1_77abfcc5_oJ.jpg.thumb

1d9_21ceb2_88afe1be_oJ.jpg.thumb
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two Lieutenants, Chard of Engineers and Bromhead find that their 140 man contingent in Natal has been isolated by the destruction of the main British Army column and that 4,000 Zulu warriors will descend on them in hours. Each has a different military background in tactics and they are immediatly in conflict on how to prepare for the attack. Nearly a third of the men are in the infirmary, as the welsh company tries to somehow survive with no help in sight. Based on a true story.

Sounds pretty good. Might have to give this a watch.
Thanks for the info. :)
 
Complete rubbish. DNR or not it's considered to one of the best blu ray transfers to date. I have the amaray and it makes the DVD look like a pirate VHS copy.

Which dvd are you talking about?
The R1 release by MGM looks like a pirate VHS copy. But the transfer issued by Paramount in the UK on the 2 Disc Set, not the 1 Disc CE, was stunning and one of the best looking dvds I had. I thought the Blu-ray would look better with the stunning detail, grain structure and film densities shown more precisely. But it just looks like an upscale of the dvd with the EE and DNR more apparent than the dvd itself. The dvd, low res or not, does'nt atleast look digitally manipulated on a huge screen. But the Bluray does. So how on Earth can you say that the bluray looks better.

I think Paramount just took the lossy 1080i Scan they did for the 2 Disc DVD, DNR'ed it, Sharpened it, upscaled it to 1080p and put it on blu-ray. This is nowhere near the treatment a movie like this should get. I love steelbooks, but I'd buy an amaray with a better transfer over a steelbook with a bad transfer anyday, even if I have to pay extra.
 
Last edited:
How can I say it looks better? I think you mean, how can I, and every single review of the blu ray, say it looks not just better, but is in fact one of the best blu ray transfers to date? Look if you want to be contrary for the sake of it, go ahead, I'm not interested.
 
Which dvd are you talking about?
The R1 release by MGM looks like a pirate VHS copy. But the transfer issued by Paramount in the UK on the 2 Disc Set, not the 1 Disc CE, was stunning and one of the best looking dvds I had. I thought the Blu-ray would look better with the stunning detail, grain structure and film densities shown more precisely. But it just looks like an upscale of the dvd with the EE and DNR more apparent than the dvd itself. The dvd, low res or not, does'nt atleast look digitally manipulated on a huge screen. But the Bluray does. So how on Earth can you say that the bluray looks better.

I think Paramount just took the lossy 1080i Scan they did for the 2 Disc DVD, DNR'ed it, Sharpened it, upscaled it to 1080p and put it on blu-ray. This is nowhere near the treatment a movie like this should get. I love steelbooks, but I'd buy an amaray with a better transfer over a steelbook with a bad transfer anyday, even if I have to pay extra.

As you are new to this site we are gonna cut you some slack, but that only goes so far. Show some respect and decorum.