'27 Dresses' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Peter's review of '27 Dresses' is up. He says it's a formulaic romantic comedy with actors that never generate any chemistry. This Blu-ray is middle-of-the-road, with fine video and audio, but largely promotional supplements. '27 Dresses' makes for a fine Saturday night date rental, but it's just a rental.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1416/27dresses.html

[RandellG]

Never even gave this one the thought of buying. Glad I kept it that way

[SoundsLikePink]

Maybe this is just the wannabe writer in me, but I have a difficult time siding with the opinion of the critic who makes so many errors in his review. I'm not sure how many critics / reviewers there are on this site, but I'm finding a lot of the reviews plagued with easily avoidable typos and mistakes lately.

For this reviewer, the trouble with this film is that everything is as you would expect except the chemistry isn't there. Fair enough. For me, the trouble with this review is that the lack of effort put into the final result. If he pays so little attention to this, who's to say he paid attention to the film, itself?

I liked the movie a lot, but I didn't love it.

Obviously I disagree with his opinion, but I don't care about that. I would assume that many men would dislike a movie like this (although I know some men will love it), so I'm it's not about the review itself. It's just...how can you point out the flaw in someone's effort when your effort is even more flawed?

[krylonman]

Ironic! I was going to post my praise that somebody finally noticed the difference between "discreet" and "discrete" and used the latter correctly. My hat's off to you for that.

This does have its share of typos and misused punctuation (along with numbers that should be spelled instead of written as numerals—"thirty" instead of "30"), and this kind of thing isn't the rarest phenomenon in the world at HDD...but when the reviews are this well done, and free to read, I can't complain very strenuously.

[SoundsLikePink]

Originally Posted by krylonman

but when the reviews are this well done, and free to read, I can't complain very strenuously.

The day I pay for reviews are the day I pay for air. Haha.

[krylonman]

Laugh it up, but neither 'Cahiers du cinemá' nor 'Consumer Reports' are free, and if it weren't for the benevolence of discreet ads off to the side this wouldn't be either. I know I don't take it for granted.

[taygan315]

No thanks. No desire to see this one at all. Everyone else that is...enjoy.

[ben1080p]

not interested. period.

[Scripture]

Originally Posted by SoundsLikePink

Maybe this is just the wannabe writer in me, but I have a difficult time siding with the opinion of the critic who makes so many errors in his review. I'm not sure how many critics / reviewers there are on this site, but I'm finding a lot of the reviews plagued with easily avoidable typos and mistakes lately.

For this reviewer, the trouble with this film is that everything is as you would expect except the chemistry isn't there. Fair enough. For me, the trouble with this review is that the lack of effort put into the final result. If he pays so little attention to this, who's to say he paid attention to the film, itself?

I liked the movie a lot, but I didn't love it.

Obviously I disagree with his opinion, but I don't care about that. I would assume that many men would dislike a movie like this (although I know some men will love it), so I'm it's not about the review itself. It's just...how can you point out the flaw in someone's effort when your effort is even more flawed?

I agree with the basic premise of your message here. Grammar and diction is one of my pet peeves as well. That said, I think that you need to proofread your post in it's entirety, as you'll find that there's egregious mistakes of the same caliber in which you disparage.

I'm sorry to bring that to light, as it would have been negligent of me had I not pointed out the droll irony. Once again, I concur with the message you're conveying, but the delivery spoils the congruous nature.

[bembol]

Even though I thought this was a Trailer movie, I'm still picking it up. It had it's moments/some laughs and I was hoping the BD would at least get 4's.

[SoundsLikePink]

Originally Posted by Scripture

I agree with the basic premise of your message here. Grammar and diction is one of my pet peeves as well. That said, I think that you need to proofread your post in it's entirety, as you'll find that there's egregious mistakes of the same caliber in which you disparage.

I'm sorry to bring that to light, as it would have been negligent of me had I not pointed out the droll irony. Once again, I concur with the message you're conveying, but the delivery spoils the congruous nature.

Don't be sorry. You had every right to point out my error(s), and I actually appreciate it. I could explain why it happened, but why make excuses? Still, if I wrote professionally or even as a contribution to a great site like this, I would try to be a bit more precise. It gives the reviews more credibility.

I write for an online advice column and the questions that I get asked are littered with so many typos that it makes me want to slit my wrist. But because I genuinely want to help these people out, I try to reply with a grammatically correct answer because I want them to trust in my advice.

If you can ignore me sticking my foot in my mouth in my original post, I still make a good point. If it were one or two reviews, it wouldn't be a big deal. These people are repeat offenders. It must stop. The credibility of their reviews is being cheapened. It's something they could fix without much effort.

Also, their star percentage is quite a train wreck as well. A movie gets 4 stars, video gets 5, audio gets 5, supplements gets 4, HD extras gets 2, and the final score is a 3? Um...OK. That's balanced. They need to come up with a new system for the stars and hire some new people to write for this site.

[Scripture]

Originally Posted by SoundsLikePink

Don't be sorry. You had every right to point out my error(s), and I actually appreciate it. I could explain why it happened, but why make excuses? Still, if I wrote professionally or even as a contribution to a great site like this, I would try to be a bit more precise. It gives the reviews more credibility.

I write for an online advice column and the questions that I get asked are littered with so many typos that it makes me want to slit my wrist. But because I genuinely want to help these people out, I try to reply with a grammatically correct answer because I want them to trust in my advice.

If you can ignore me sticking my foot in my mouth in my original post, I still make a good point. If it were one or two reviews, it wouldn't be a big deal. These people are repeat offenders. It must stop. The credibility of their reviews is being cheapened. It's something they could fix without much effort.

Also, their star percentage is quite a train wreck as well. A movie gets 4 stars, video gets 5, audio gets 5, supplements gets 4, HD extras gets 2, and the final score is a 3? Um...OK. That's balanced. They need to come up with a new system for the stars and hire some new people to write for this site.

I understand where you're coming from, really I do. I'm the type of person that has always lived by the doctrine of 'perfection in expression' (yes, I just coined that on the fly). While I don't expect others to adhere to such a rigid principle, nothing grinds my nerves worse than certain grammatical miscues (internet slang being another). I hold myself to a certain standard, and expect a certain level of proficiency at all times - in terms of accuracy and articulation. Certainly it doesn't always work that way, as human beings are fallible creatures. That said, rare is the occasion that you'll find me stamped with a faux pas in the grammatical context.

Like I said in my post earlier, I agree with the underlying point that you're driving home. My best suggestion would be to start a thread, of the same veritable potpourri we've discussed here, in the feedback subforum. I would assume that the powers that be would be much more likely to welcome the suggestions in that section.

There's no question that your heart is in the right place, and that's all that really matters at the end of the day.

[terpfan1980]

Originally Posted by SoundsLikePink

Maybe this is just the wannabe writer in me, but I have a difficult time siding with the opinion of the critic who makes so many errors in his review. I'm not sure how many critics / reviewers there are on this site, but I'm finding a lot of the reviews plagued with easily avoidable typos and mistakes lately.

Ok, lets look at these words:

Originally Posted by SoundsLikePink

... so I'm it's not about the review itself. It's just...how can you point out the flaw in someone's effort when your effort is even more flawed?

Uh, was the writer of the words quoted (and bolded) above in a hurry? Should we discount those words in the same way that the writer of same would have us discount the words of the HDD reviewer here?

Typo's happen. Quick typing, slow internet, and yes sometimes just plain carelessness lets those things slide through. Personally I ignore them and try to get to the meaning of the words that the writer was trying to use ignoring my own dyslexic tendencies and my own obsession with perfection.

[terpfan1980]

To get back on the topic of this movie, I appreciate the review and quick summary. I put this title in my rental que as I assume that my wife will enjoy watching it and it should be tolerable enough (and perhaps enjoyable enough) to be a date movie. For the few cents (or perhaps it's over a dollar...) worth of my Netflix/Blockbuster rental fee it is worth seeing. Buying? Most likely not worth it, but that's why I'd rather rent first most of the time anyway.

[AllSport11]

I thought this was a cute movie, actually like it more than my girl did. Will definately be picking it up.