'Liar Liar' - High-Def Diget review - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2007, 12:23 AM
jed's Avatar
jed jed is offline
HDD Founder
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,621
Default 'Liar Liar' - High-Def Diget review

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-19-2007, 11:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,235
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2007, 11:43 AM
Blu-News.com's Avatar
Always SpartanJohnson
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,543
Default

That's why I don't buy catalog releases usually. Why can't Universal pull out transfers like Warner Bros. catalog releases? haha.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2007, 11:50 AM
prophecyc2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 265
Default

Why can't catalog releases be $14.99?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2007, 12:13 PM
Blurry's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,187
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2007, 12:39 PM
Brad1963's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,932
Default

I guess I am the only one who thought Liar Liar looked fine on HD DVD.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-25-2007, 02:24 AM
Vriess's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 631
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-24-2007, 11:55 AM
Crypter's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 542
Default

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.

Last edited by Crypter; 07-25-2007 at 12:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crypter View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-24-2007, 03:40 PM
Blurry's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,187
Default

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Brown View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'THX 1138: The George Lucas Director's Cut' - High-Def Diget Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 8 02-15-2016 12:14 PM
'Liar Liar' & 'The Jerk' are coming July 9 Landy Blu-ray Software General Discussion 11 05-30-2013 07:17 PM
'Ninja Assassin' - High-Def Diget Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 45 04-23-2010 11:41 PM
Has anyone seen Liar Liar? vooswing HD DVD Software General Discussion 7 06-18-2007 12:54 PM
BORN ON 4th / BRUCE ALMIGHTY / LIAR LIAR Brad1963 HD DVD Software General Discussion 30 06-07-2007 11:51 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off