'Liar Liar' - High-Def Diget review

[jed]

Kenneth's review of 'Liar Liar' is up. He says fans of the film and/or Carrey's earlier work are sure to have a good time with this one, and enjoy its decent audio package, but in what is becoming an unfortunate trend with many of Universal's more recent catalogue titles, he says the visual presentation is disappointingly sub-par compared to other high-def catalogue titles.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/liarliar.html

[Office Ed]

This is depressing, I was hoping that HD was a format where film lovers could get the most out of movie classics, but it seems to be aimed at people who will buy any old crap.

[Blu-News.com]

That's why I don't buy catalog releases usually. Why can't Universal pull out transfers like Warner Bros. catalog releases? haha.

[prophecyc2]

Why can't catalog releases be $14.99?

[Blurry]

I got such a kick watching Bruce Almighty last night wih my wife, that I am going ahead and ordering this one too. JI had forgotten how funny Jim Carey can be.

[Brad1963]

I guess I am the only one who thought Liar Liar looked fine on HD DVD.

[Vriess]

No I have to say I rented it and had absolutely no complaints about the PQ. Looking at some other reviews it seems there are many positive reviews for pq.

Take a look at this for yourself if you might want to buy it, to me it looked pretty great for a comedy. I'm honestly not sure what the reviewer was expecting as I guarantee this is far better than it looked in theatres.

[Crypter]

Ok I now have ZERO faith in the reviews in this website. I saw this last night on my 1080p 61" TV and I have to say that it deserved a much better rating that it was given here. It looked absolutely great and if that movie is a 3 on this site then at least I know that anything with a 3 has the potential to look outstanding (at least according to this site). I think this website is doing a disservice to HDDVD with reviews like this. For this movie the image was so crisp and definetly had that 3-Dimensional feel that we have come to expect from a High Def movie.

Anyhow just my 2 cents.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Crypter

Ok I now have ZERO faith in the reviews in this website. I saw this last night on my 1080p 61" TV and I have to say that it deserved a much better rating that it was given here. It looked absolutely great and if that movie is a 3 on this site then I at least now I know that anything with a 3 has the potential to look outstanding. I think this website is doing a disservice to HDDVD with reviews like this. For this movie the image was so crisp and definetly had that 3-Dimensional feel that we have come to expect from a High Def movie.

Anyhow just my 2 cents.

Just keep in mind that a "3" is above average (a "2.5 being middle-of-the-road). A "3" isn't as bad as some fan reaction seems to imply. Also keep in mind that simply putting any film on HD will result in a crisper, more vivid picture that feels more three-dimensional. But HD allows for much more.

Most other review sites have also scored the video in the 3-3.5 range.

To be blunt, a higher score would do a disservice to other HD DVD titles -- 'Born on the Fourth of July' looks significantly better than 'Liar Liar' and had more hurdles to overcome (it scored a "4") and 'The Matrix' films are leaps and bounds better than 'Liar Liar' (they scored a "5").

It would be unfair to put 'Liar Liar' at the same level of either of these films even though it looks better-than-average. By that token, everything would be a "4" or "5" simply for looking good in high-def (aside from transfers with glaring technical problems).

I certainly don't want to incense an argument -- just though it would be helpful to know where I was coming from. Thanks as always for posting!

[Blurry]

Hi Ken,

I appreciate your answers. I just wanted to clarify why I "think" perception might be skewed. I think many people think of 3 as being average because there are 2 whole points below it and 2 above it, whereas there are 2 "whole" points below 2.5 and 3 above it.

Also, even on this site, the stars are defined as:

***** Excellent
**** Good
*** Average
** Bad
* Terrible

Look at the sub menu for "Rate Thread" in any of these threads to see these definitions. Based on this 3 stars is just a step above "bad" and less than "good". I also tend to thing of 3 stars as just plain average most anywhere and 2.5 as meaning below average. I don't think my interpretation is that different from the general interpretation.

Also, I realize that your analysis is based on 2.5 being 1/2 of 5, which is mathematically correct if the rating is zero based (and perhaps you have the option of choosing a score less than 1), however in almost any place a regular user is allowed to vote, 1 is typically the worst score allowed which means that the midway point in those cases is actually 3, hence "average"

-Blurry

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Just keep in mind that a "3" is above average (a "2.5 being middle-of-the-road). A "3" isn't as bad as some fan reaction seems to imply. Also keep in mind that simply putting any film on HD will result in a crisper, more vivid picture that feels more three-dimensional. But HD allows for much more.

Most other review sites have also scored the video in the 3-3.5 range.

To be blunt, a higher score would do a disservice to other HD DVD titles -- 'Born on the Fourth of July' looks significantly better than 'Liar Liar' and had more hurdles to overcome (it scored a "4") and 'The Matrix' films are leaps and bounds better than 'Liar Liar' (they scored a "5").

It would be unfair to put 'Liar Liar' at the same level of either of these films even though it looks better-than-average. By that token, everything would be a "4" or "5" simply for looking good in high-def (aside from transfers with glaring technical problems).

I certainly don't want to incense an argument -- just though it would be helpful to know where I was coming from. Thanks as always for posting!

[califlaman1976]

Blurry you hit the nail on the head, you are absolutely right.
that 3 in most peoples minds is not above average.
but i dont just agree with the numbering system i disagree with alot of what is being written by the reviewer.for example he seems to not take into account 9 times out of 10 the director and cinematographers intentions in terms of picture grain, i can just imagine what kind of reviews we will be seeing in terms of sound quality when woody allens movies start being released in hd dvd or bluray, since woodys movies are only recorded in mono.
i just dont agree with what this reviewer has written time and again. And to try and compare Liar Liar to The Matrix movies, is like compareing an apple and a orange. the matrix are visual eye candy. i like how he makes a argument about how its a disservice to movies like the matrix to give movies like liar liar higher than a 3 especially since he didnt even review the matrix movies on here.
i have a choice not to read his reviews and i wont as i think they do a great diservice.

i also find it offensive he calls the people who are complaining about the reviews "FANS" like were nothing but whinny babies who complain about anything that we dont agree with 100 percent.

Originally Posted by Blurry

Hi Ken,

I appreciate your answers. I just wanted to clarify why I "think" perception might be skewed. I think many people think of 3 as being average because there are 2 whole points below it and 2 above it, whereas there are 2 "whole" points below 2.5 and 3 above it.

Also, even on this site, the stars are defined as:

***** Excellent
**** Good
*** Average
** Bad
* Terrible

Look at the sub menu for "Rate Thread" in any of these threads to see these definitions. Based on this 3 stars is just a step above "bad" and less than "good". I also tend to thing of 3 stars as just plain average most anywhere and 2.5 as meaning below average. I don't think my interpretation is that different from the general interpretation.

Also, I realize that your analysis is based on 2.5 being 1/2 of 5, which is mathematically correct if the rating is zero based (and perhaps you have the option of choosing a score less than 1), however in almost any place a regular user is allowed to vote, 1 is typically the worst score allowed which means that the midway point in those cases is actually 3, hence "average"

-Blurry

[ericpizzapie]

Was thinking about buying this from Inetvideo so I looked up the review and landed in this thread. Anyway, interesting discussion on the PQ. The star rating system is put to the test here. Maybe one of our new reviewers should brush up on the star rating system and actually use it. It seems one star means terrible. So what would no stars be? Older reviews never received no stars for anything. I'm just looking for some consistency in the reviews. I realize these are opinions and to each is own. But if the star system meant the same across the board I think that would help.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by ericpizzapie

Was thinking about buying this from Inetvideo so I looked up the review and landed in this thread. Anyway, interesting discussion on the PQ. The star rating system is put to the test here. Maybe one of our new reviewers should brush up on the star rating system and actually use it. It seems one star means terrible. So what would no stars be? Older reviews never received no stars for anything. I'm just looking for some consistency in the reviews. I realize these are opinions and to each is own. But if the star system meant the same across the board I think that would help.

I'm not sure how this post pertains to the Liar Liar review. The only category that disc was given 0 stars was for High-Def Extras, of which it doesn't have any.

[bruceames]

I think at the time of Blurry's post, there were no movie review scores lower than 1 star, but since then there have cropped up a few movies that are worse than terrible.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by bruceames

I think at the time of Blurry's post, there were no movie review scores lower than 1 star, but since then there have cropped up a few movies that are worse than terrible.

The movie rating is obviously subjective. Some movies are so terrible that they have absolutely no redeeming qualities. I gave UltraViolet a 0 star review back in the day (when I was at DVDTalk), and nobody raised the slightest fuss.

I will be giving an upcoming review a 0 star score, which will probably upset some people's delicate sensibilities. But I absolutely feel that the movie deserves it. If I could go into a negative scale, I would.