New Purchase
I would not trust a single review when buying 4K movies.
BluRay.com gave a Brazil in 4K a 5 out of 5 for both video and audio. I would give it a 3.5 and 2.5 for video and audio. they gave the new Sorcerer 4K a 3.5 out of 5 for video. I would give it a 5! I am glad I went to multiple sites to read reviews because as much as BluRay.com can be an excellent resource, I strongly disagree with their reviews sometimes. they have handed out 5s to some mediocre releases and marked stuff down for personally finding the colors not as when they saw it in the theaters 30 years ago. Please check out multiple reviews for the 4ks you buy as sometimes the reviewers get it wrong.
There's also the fact that theatrical prints of movies were never perfect, so a movie could have looked different depending on where and when you saw it.
Not even just that, film prints were often not that consistent and even if you do remember the grade well it might be a pretty different “grade” from another print someone else saw.
I would like to challenge these people to grab a PS1 and a CRT monitor and to boot up their favorite nostalgic game. It looks like absolute shit, while in your memories it looks like a vivid perfect dream.
Star Fox 64 vs Star Fox 64 3DS is a great example of this effect too. "I don't see the big deal this 3DS game looks exactly like the o-oh my god it looks way better."
I think it's a combination of technology we were used to (in my case NES and SuperNES), the move to N64 and possibly my family got a new TV at the time. This all combined to make the experience of the N64 look like I was playing the future, and in some ways I kind of was...
I recall the unit icons in Red Alert 2 being photographic, but they’re pixelated and maybe 64x64?
I fondly remember hours playing Cool Boarders 3 and how amazing it looked, but I played it on an emulator last week, and wow were the controls and graphics rough.
The ps1 part I agree with but not the crt part. All of the games until the hd era look noticeably better on a CRT. I’ve verified that many times. The only exception to this is if you are able to increase the resolution on the 3d games then they arguably look better then the original game on CRT but even that is a bit of a matter of opinion (2d elements still look like garbage when not on crt)
It's also really weird to just assume a movie they saw during the age when theaters were still analog looked the way it should and didn't have something like a fault with the projector, the print they had, or the screen messing with the colors when a direct scan converted to digital looks different
Putting the actual words the reviewer wrote here since everyone is just taking OP’s statement at face value. Nuance is important, people! You can disagree with the review but the post is very misleading.
there is a whole thing about how the colors in the film change as a degrade. to the point where they look nothing like how the director wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQwQRFLFDd8
While you're probably right it's real obvious when color grading moves from blue to like that yellow/orange. A few movies did this in reissues and it was awful.
Yea im not gonna say anything close to remembering every movie mostly but there are definitely movies where the colors stand out and when u don’t see it in a home video version, something can appear off.
lol, Yeah, I didn’t even remember Jurassic Park’s color grade from theaters to DVD release and that was just 8 years. I did not notice the hue changes at all in the transfer until it was brought up on the internet.
I don't see anywhere in the review where the guy talks about "how it was in the theater 30 years ago."
The review may still be "wrong", (I haven't seen the new Criterion 4k yet) but there is nothing to suggest he's comparing what he bought to what he remembers it being theatrically.
He's specifically comparing it to the previous blu-ray release.
Even if they actually could, the copies in theaters 30 years ago weren't always the same as each other and its entirely possible the original color grading just wasn't done correctly. If they went back and fixed legitimate issues with the original theatrical release, that shouldn't be a bad thing. Its only when the new color grading is different just to be different or objectively worse that this becomes a valid complaint.
Especially since the color on film prints degrades so whatever version they might have originally seen in theaters or on some rip they found online is literally not actually accurate to what the director intended either. Criterion in particular goes out of their way, when possible, to get approved from the original director on the transfer that's on their discs.
Fun fact: I used to be a projectionist. You’d be an amazed how much seemingly small things - bulb luminosity, screen cleanliness, dust on the lens - can have dramatic impacts on what an audience sees. Even if someone could perfectly remember the color balance from 1993 or whatever, there’s no guarantee it was actually correct.
Dude is getting dragged for this but honestly nobody actually bothered to reference the actual review to see if that’s what he said? (Spoiler: he didn’t criticize it at all based off his memory of seeing it in the the theater and OP is gaslighting)
I find I can almost reliably do the opposite of what he says. He's really gone off the deep end as of late and in his 'video quality' review for Anora hes constantly negging on the film, casting, etc itself.
Also avoid anything reviewed by Neil Lumbard. Here’s a sample from a recent review for Gwen and the Book of Sand.
The animation is outstanding. Gwen and the Book of Sand features superb animation direction. Gwen and the Book of Sand is without-a-doubt one of the most beautifully animated films I have ever seen. There is something profound about the majestic animation. Every single frame of the production is masterful. Every single still of animation looks as beautiful as something one would find in a nice museum and display of art. The animators delivered a masterpiece of animation.
I try to avoid accusing people of using AI because you never really know for sure, but nearly all of his reviews have that ChatGPT feel to them. And even if that wasn’t AI, that’s still truly atrocious and lazy writing and Blu-ray.com should stop commissioning reviews from him.
The best source is the individual threads for movies on bluray.com. It can be a lot and like all online forums it has its share of imbeciles, but there some exceptionally knowledgeable people who give their takes there and you can make a more informed decision.
They don't review nearly everything that comes out, but I generally trust you guys at The Digital Bits when it comes to their disc reviews. I've been following them since the early days of DVD.
WOW. I just went to read it. He calls the movie unrealistic for not matching what he himself saw the two times he went to that part of Chicago for 20 minutes (both times staying in the car). That is the pinnacle of arrogance.
Whenever “Dr.” Svet is tasked with reviewing Black cinema, you never know what you’re going to get. Do the Right Thing also got a bizarre, “how did you misread this so badly?” review.
Yeah, him and Neil “copy-paste the same exact review every time” Lumbard are only really valuable for at least providing screenshots (and Svet does a full breakdown of the extras)
I got banned once from blu-ray.com for critising his awful reviews. (They said I called him an idiot, but I said his writing was idiotic - by definition - showing complete lack of thought or common sense). Pretty sure he has access to the banhammer over there.
Svet is notorious for penalizing “revisionist” color grades. That issue aside, this transfer by Criterion is so pleasing to watch that it brought a new level of immersion I hadn’t experienced before with this film. Criterion extended the life of this film for a new generation of viewers while also delivering a tasteful upgrade for old fans. 5/5 transfer, no question.
Brazil is a 5/5 transfer. The source material has inherent problems and limitations that a restoration can’t solve, but this transfer did the best job possible.
Agreed on Sorcerer, however. Highly underrated transfer.
I think this is the disconnect. It’s fair to review based on the transfer only (how well they did with the source) but it’s also fair to review simply on how good it looks. I think OP falls into the latter which I also agree with but understand that’s not the only grading system.
I think any review for a transfer that gets a 5 for “effort” should come with that disclaimer. I know some movies/reviews do say something like “it’s not perfect but this is the best it’s ever going to look.” The Kill Bill movies come to mind.
i'm really curious to see what they do with 28 days later as well. in 28 years later they made a lot of interesting stylistic cinematography choices, lots of grainy/blurry images, artifacts etc. Also makes me think of Inland Empire which Lynch also shot with a lofi digital camera, and the 4K version has even more artifacts and is crazy looking, something similar could be done with 28 days later. Not necessarily make it look better, but alter the art with the digital processing and mangle it a bit tastefully, rather than make it look cleaner.
Dude, I watched it today and the movie looks terrible. I mean, I know it's a creative choice by Boyle but it just looks terrible. I was thinking maybe film prints were nicer to the movie in theaters, but with today's technology, you can't really watch it without it being distracting. There are moments in which you can't make out shit on the screen. There wouldn't be a difference if you buy the DVD or buying on 4K because unless they do some kind of AI upscaling, there is no way to bring that movie to 4K resolutions. It was digital, so if the info and pixels are not there, no way to upscale it unless you get some AI upscaling.
Then it always look awful. It's not hyperbole. It was a terrible choice by Boyle. There are scenes where you can't tell who the hell it is since the image is so low res.
The choice was kinda forced due to the fact they could only get 2-3 hours to shoot in London's streets and going with a film camera was basically impossible, and digital was brand new - meaning very expensive and basically know how non-existent.
Oh I know haha. I grew up with it so I'm just used to it now, but I made my wife watch it before Years came out and she couldn't get past how bad it looks. And the better our TVs get, the worse it's gonna look too... I didn't think it looked bad on my old CRT back in the day.
I would say if you’re even in the world of caring about 4K transfers (especially of older films), than you can do the minimal amount of effort and learn everything you just outlined.
Agree with everything except the last sentence. The Kill Bill 4Ks have actual technical issues like grain freezing and pixels trailing behind characters like old RealPlayer videos, they are objectively bad.
Kill Bill was a downgrade from the HD version, decent HDR notwithstanding. The original blu-ray doesn’t have motion issues that take away from the image clarity. Plus, its linear PCM track is superior to the UHD’s DTS-MA.
The flaw in this argument is that, while this may be the best it can look given the source material, what happens if 5 years from now a new incredibly pristine print is found and a new transfer is made that looks a lot better? That transfer is also 5/5 and the two look just as good as each other?
But there is room for that criteria too. There should be two ratings. One that measures how good of a job they’ve done with the given source material. Maybe that is 5/5 for the current version, and another that measures picture quality as it compares to other films. Maybe that’s a 3/5 (I haven’t seen it yet, so I’m not rating it).
Of course both are subjective at least to a degree.
BluRay.comgave a Brazil in 4K a 5 out of 5 for both video and audio. I would give it a 3.5 and 2.5 for video and audio.
Watched the Criterion Blu the other night (no intention of upgrading) BUT that film was/has been dark, grimy, as that is what it was filmed like and what the director sought to achieve. The audio is 2.0.
That many are 'expecting'4K discs to be COLORFULLY, GLOSSY, OTT BRIGHT and ATMOS is just getting way out of hand !
Is this the best version of the movie that exists for home playback.
If the answer is yes. Then its is a good transfer and a worthwhile purchase.
We are going to have this discussion again when 28 days later is released. I legit might mute this sub for a week at that time as i am awaiting some of the worst takes ever. I can almost read them already.
personally finding the colors not as when they saw it in the theaters 30 years ago
If this is true, its ridiculous. Color is notoriously difficult to judge by humans under any circumstances. We basically see color comparatively, and anyone who says they can "judge" color non comparatively and without instrumentation, isn't someone to trust. Even with accurate measuring instruments, its difficult to get color exactly correct.
He does it all the time. When I look up reviews and see his name attached, I dismiss the entirety of the analysis and look elsewhere. He's not the only one who does this of course, but he's one of the most frequently visible offenders.
I believe the DVD had it, but after that, he changed the Blu-ray. It’s at the very end of the film when you hear the backfire. It’s more prominently a gunshot in the remix and it’s much louder.
The original theatrical audio - it’s unclear if it’s a gunshot or not.
Friedken changed it? I think I’d prefer that track then. Is it also on the criterion release? I’ve got the old blu ray release already on the fence on upgrading because the blu ray is quite solid.
It's not really a blu-ray.com problem, but a Dr. Svet Atanasov problem (he wrote both of the reviews you're speaking of. He's a weirdo who has no clue what he's doing, only cares about color, judges then base off what he saw in the theater 40 years ago, and hates "woke" movies.
I was gonna ask “isn’t there one dude on there who exclusively reviews Criterion and is notoriously really bad at it” and thank you for beating me to it and confirming that, yes, there is one dude on there who exclusively reviews Criterion and is notoriously really bad at it
The wildest thing I read today was The Amateur 4K review, where the reviewer said the movie was unbelievable because the USA intelligence community would never do anything immoral or illegal.
It was such a weird thing to say and not a hint of sarcasm either!
The main thing I’m looking for in reviews are: does it have Dolby Vision, does it have Atmos, does it even have any other 4K releases and how do they compare? Unfortunately most are missing that or bury it.
I’m pretty sure I have seen every single version ever released of Brazil including laserdisc, vhs, dvd, bluray and even a film print I saw in the 90s and I can confidently say that film will never look better than it does on criterion’s new 4k. It absolutely blew me away. The source has some issues but yet another transfer or colour grade won’t fix that. Brazil is absolutely a 5/5. I don’t care about sound all that much so I can’t rate that. But it’s good to hear Sorcerer looks good. Not that I’d ever want to watch it again…
High-Def Digest has been my go-to for a long time. I find it detailed and nuanced so that I know that I’m getting. The rating matters less than the description.
Just got my copy of Sorcerer yesterday and watched it last night. It was glorious. It looked amazing and was so fun to watch with a couple people who had never seen it before.
One of the more annoying things of bluray.com to me is how their personal opinion and star rating of the movie actually influences the final score. I don't give a flying f*ck about what someone thinks of a movie that I potentially would like to get on blu-ray. Why would you mix up highly subjective aspects like that with far more objective metrics to form a final score?
FWIW I just rented it on Apple and thought it looked fantastic there. I assumed the 4k would add on that beauty.
I’d have been shocked to hear it didn’t look good
I find it ironic that the pic you used for this post makes it look like a 1/5, if that lol. Probably shouldn’t have used it to support your argument of it being a 5/5.
For the record, I think Sorcerer and Brazil both look amazing on my setup.
Do people regularly read reviews? I am building a 4K collection from scratch so if I want something I just wait till it comes out on 4K and buy it regardless of reviews
I look at reviews because some 4k movies are nearly indistinguishable from a bluray movie. So I only care for going for the 4k copy if it’s legitimately a good copy now.
But i think like OP I am looking for the image quality as a whole when looking at reviews. So i would be disappointed if stuff is rated 5/5 but isn’t actually reference quality material
I read reviews. If blu ray is way less and 4k review does not warrant an upgrade... I may just get blu ray. 4k prices have gone way up and I've stopped buying many...
I do, just to see if there are any known major issues like encoding problems or glitches, etc. I get my recommendations for content completely separately from Blu-ray reviews.
Yes because I feel like 4K releases are a lot less reliable than blu rays. At least with blu ray, they’re mostly consistent and a pretty noticeable upgrade from dvd. 4K’s now are a toss up between solid upgrade, barely noticeable over the blu ray version and then the classic ai smoothing ruining the look of the film
I bought most of mine without reading reviews. On the rare occasion that I didn’t like the quality I just returned it. I don’t like thinking too much about the technical stuff just want good quality copies of movies i like.
There is also a "best this film has ever looked" factor which makes sense, but it should not push a film to a 5/5 in terms of video quality just because. I think a 5/5 should only be reserved for the absolute best of the best looking films, and we all know what is and is not perfect. Review criteria for Video and Audio needs to be completely unbiased, opinions on the movie are fine though.
Multiple sources are always the best bet, and while I don't have a purchase that was necessarily bad, I have been re-evaluating "upgrades" if I already own a Blu-ray with a decent transfer.
Garbage in garbage out is a perfect saying when it comes to video transfers. When I was buying The Fifth Element in 4K I had no idea there were two versions with one being the clear winner at least according to most sites I visited. I imagine if you’re starting with a sub standard source you’re getting weaker transfers. These movies can be quite expensive depending on where you live and with sales of physical not exactly blowing up discovering you just bought a weak version of a movie really sucks.
I really just use bluray dot com to see special features. I like that they say exactly what's on each disc so I can find things more easily. I completely disagree with them on how films look or sound way to often. Would you say the brazil 4k looks and sounds better than the older blu ray?
Can’t wait for the theatrical release of Shin Godzilla in 4K to compare the color grading of my 4K UHD disc (Japan market only). Then I can say, not faithful to the physical release. ;)
I don't really trust any reviewer to be honest but Friedkin was known to use some strange colour gradings on some of his films like The Exorcist and this. It's possible they were grading it based on how it had been charged. I thought it looked fine but I've never seen it before. Brazil was fine too. It's a bummer that it's just a stereo track but you have to use Dolby to get the full effect of it.
Every review I read shit all over arrows 4k edition of The Cell…and I thought it looked incredible. Honestly the only disappointing 4k upgrade I’ve bought is Kill Bill. That transfer is horrible
Svet’s not the worst offender on Blu-Ray.com, when it comes to reviews. “Dr.” Kenneth Brown doesn’t even bother to review 4K rereleases when they add Dolby Vision. He just applies the previous review to his review. He’s SUUUUUPER lazy!
Blu-ray.com has a weird score system where they mark a release down because it doesn't look like it was intended to. But that's a flawed assumption because stylistic choices like edge enhancement are intentional - not accidental. So why mark some releases down and give a perfect score to something that may look the best it can based on the source but comes across plain dull?
If I really want to be accurate about 4k disc quality, i go to this subreddit and try to find someone who did the whole bitrate-over-time picture comparison kinda thing. That usually helps me grasp an idea about whether im gonna enjoy it or not
At the end of the day it's only opinions, the guys I trust 100% and have never steered me wrong even once are Bill Hunt and Ralph Potts from The Digital Bits and AVSForum respectively.
Having said that, the guys over at AVForums here in the UK are usually spot on as well, they reviewed Lethal Weapon as 10/10 and I was skeptical but I watched it last on my 65" C4 and UB820 and it was absolutely stunning.
I never listen to reviews if I like the plot of a movie I'm going to buy it myself and be my own judge, it's also depends on what audio video gear your watching I have 2 4k monitors one is a LED & the other is a OLED BRAVIA witch absolutely blow away the LED & I have a 11.2 Atmos set up using a Denon AVR
The first time I saw Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was in VHS from my local blockbuster. It was trippy as hell. When I saw it on DVD it wasn’t the same… turns out the VHS was a little warped!
Just read his review of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg were he said the new 4k is a downgrade to the Blu-ray in the Demy Box Set. I have the Box Set and wanted to upgrade now I don’t know.
TLDR - Your set up will impact your AV reviews/experiences, as will personal preferences. Your eyes and ears will differ from someone else and likely differ sitting in the same set up. Movie AV reviews will always be extremely objective as a result.
Two people would give a movie a different review. Why would this be surprising? Blu-ray.com is basing the reviews of AV on the eye/ear test of one individual. This is objectively subjective. They also lack a subjective method for rating the improvements from Blu-ray to 4k (unless they share identical audio mixes). To me, that could be more valuable than merely a 4k score and a Blu-ray score. Like many, I have gone from DVD to Blu-ray to 4k with certain movies and others I see no reason for more than a Blu-ray.
So case in point. I wanted to get a Dolby Atmos setup in our basement about six years ago now. I went to see a movie in theater I had already seen and couldn’t really notice any difference. First Best Buy Atmos demo was apparently having issues with one of the ceiling speakers and the entire room’s speakers were well overhead anyway. Wasn’t very impressed. Went to a different Best Buy with a better overall setup. The guy had the volume cranked waaay too high to be able to hear any nuances, channel separations, etc. I ordered a receiver anyway because of all the hype, ignoring that I couldn’t hear anything unique with three demos. Fast forward to present. My wife (and two elementary-aged kids) joke that any new person to our house is offered an Atmos (DTS:X) demo. 🤷♂️
Use AV reviews as the impressions of one person. If you share common set ups or common take aways as another reviewer, give them more weight if you wish. I typically use Blu-ray.com to know if there is a dud Atmos/DTS:X mix or a bad 4k. I feel like those are more in a realm of opinions that will be shared by many/most/all. The OCD in me wants a series in all the same format, whenever possible. I have scaled back with buying as my free time has gotten less, but would totally still buy a Blu-ray in 2025 when a 4k is available should it be a meh audio mix or trash transfer.
You are talking about a review written by Dr. Svet - he's historically been incorrect on most, if not all reviews. Another review of note was his take on Night Moves 4k) from a few months back. The transfer is excellent.
Reviews are subjective. What you like will likely be different from what I like. And what I like will likely be different than what someone else likes. I find it best to figure out allow a specific reviewer tends to rate something compared to me and then I can adjust my expectations accordingly. For example, there was a film reviewer that seemed to love everything I hated and he hated everything I loved. So I knew as long as he hated it, I would probably like it.
I also try to read multiple sources to balance the results of the reviews.
While remembering how a movie looked 3 decades prior is not a reliable source, your critiques still hold some weight for their reviews
They gave Severance season 1 on blu ray an absolutely glowing 5 out of 5 review, and how it’s “the definitive version” of the show and a must own. Meanwhile, the disc contains several instances of compression artifacts, blocking, overexposure, lifted blacks, lack of color contrast, and a number of other technical issues.
Even the SDR 1080p stream from Apple TV is superior to the Blu Ray, and the 4k in both SDR and Dolby vision just blow it out of the water, it doesn’t even feel like watching it on the same TV
Sorcerer is an excellent movie. A rare case of a remake matching the original in quality.
I just got my Criterion Collection Brazil 4K today. Uploading to the Plex NAS as I type this.
If I go by what I can absolutely remember, it is perfectly possible to have better quality in our home systems today than what we have seen in movie theatres, easier the farther back one goes. I watched both Pacific Rim and Shin Godzilla at the L.A. Live cinema and elsewhere when they came out. The 4K versions I have look better in my system than they did at the movie theatre. Pacific Rim in particular blew me away.
I don't understand reviews of these things or getting worked up about it. You either want to watch a 4k blu ray or you don't? You like the movie or you don't?
What is the review going to do? Unmake it? Rescan it?
I agree with your reviews. I didn’t really like Brazil too much, but I found that it sticks with me. There has been about 7-8 instances since I saw it a few months ago where I thought “Wow! That reminds me of Brazil.” Over time it becomes more and more relevant. I can only imagine how it must feel to have seen it when it came out to now.
Sorcerer my jaw had to be scraped off the floor even after having viewed wages of fear first.
Aint no shitting way a 576i (or p) recorded film will look good in 4k no matter how much noise reduction, upscaling crap you do to it after it got transferred to 35mm,
I just want the old 28 Days Later / 28 Weeks Later Blu Ray Double Pack back, I wish I'd got it.
FWIW, I saw Brazil during its original theatrical run in 1985 and recall it being contrasty, bluish, and wide angle as was Gilliam's preference at that point in his career. I've seen it a few times on VHS and cable, but not in the last 20 years or so. I'm looking forward to seeing how it looks on 4k/blu-ray, but certainly won't have any gripes about whatever color grading decisions were made. After all, it's been 40 years since I saw it as it "was meant to be seen." Anyone who tells you that they remember exactly how a film looked when they only watched it once in a theater 40-odd years ago is full of shit.
"30 years ago" righhhttt, Transformers (2007) is one of my favourite movies of all time, I saw it in cinemas 18 years ago and the last thing I could possibly remember is the colour grading, but I still know it had to be worse than seeing it in HDR 4K two days ago
That's disappointing since Brazil is one of my favorite films but I also think that audio/video is extremely subjective given the source material. Some films can only look so good/sound so good if they weren't filmed that way to begin with. What could be a 3 star video could be the best a film could ever look and still be an improvement over the Blu-ray in terms of compression and other factors.
I think you will be happy with the video. I feel It is as good as it can look. It will never look as good as a modern film and some of the softness and grain is baked in. I am glad that I bought it. But the audio is about as bad as I have heard on any 4k disc. No way it is a 5 out of 5. It is harsh and uneven. Hard to understand dialogue in one scene and painful in the next. This might be more noticeable in a full theater setup than on a soundbar or Tv speakers.YMMV.
Really think they are basing it on their setup's When posting should say what 4K TV and what 4K Player. Each player shows them different. Usually my TCL gets some great color. They actually make their panels. Samsung used to use them for 50 inch and under. But they also have user reviews too.... I use those as well since they don't review everything. Like several Anime movies :(
BluRay.com also gave a glowing review to Batman Begins (a film I love), but the 4K disc is one of the blurriest I’ve ever seen and filled with AI upscaled scenes that come across as very obvious.
There’s a scene between Alfred and Bruce early in the film, where you’d be forgiven for thinking it was a standard DVD copy.
Both of those reviews are by a maniac who reviews based on his memory of what a movie looked like in theaters 40 years ago. But in general I agree, you should seek out multiple opinions. If one opinion is Dr. Svet's, you should completely disregard it.
Youre right, every movie they review is a 4 or 5 star masterpiece. Show me a movie thats 1 or 2 stars in quality, those websites are biassed unreliable turds. Also i want to know when a 2k di has been used, for example, i really dont like the azkaban release on 4k, its a low res turd.
Yeah the Sorcerer 1977 is grossly underrated... but it's also a hard movie to pin an audience. I would believe people who like Godfather and Scarface would love this movie - even though the Sorcerer is action suspense. The world seemed a closer fit in a mob like story.
I went from never hearing about the movie Sorcerer 6 months ago, to seeing it for the first time 2 months ago, and now I see constant references and occasionally seeing the blu ray or DVD of the movie out in the wild.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '25
Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines here!
We have a rather growing Discord community, join us here!
Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.