HTF REVIEW: "Groundhog Day" Special Edition (1 Viewer)

[Chris Maynard]

They should pull the whole review down and let another reviewer go back and visit the title.

How can you give any credence to anything in the current review after that blatant example of non-examination?

 

[Michael Reuben]

WOW!
A few months ago I got slammed left and right for daring to say that I no longer found DVDFile's reviews reliable. My judgment was questioned, the state of my equipment, my taste and viewing habits -- everything except the legitimacy of my parentage (and someone probably questioned that privately).
I'm really enjoying this thread.
M.

 

[HenrikTull]

But that is the only glitch in an otherwise well-balanced transfer. There is very little dirt on the print, although I'm tired of transfers that make no effort to clean up opening credit sequences. Just because there's some text at the start of your movie, doesn't mean you can't clean up that picture as well.

I found this particulary funny as well. Ever heard of optical shots?!?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The dirty little secret of the DVD review biz is that a LOT of reviewers barely bother to watch the discs they rate - this isn't an isolated occurrence. All of us make the occasional honest mistake, but some folks really push the envelope, and Groundhog seems to be catching up with a few of them; it's rather obvious you haven't watched the DVD when you claim it includes an absent soundtrack...

 

[LukeB]

I think you're right, Colin. And maybe the lack of DTS on "Groundhog Day" is not a bad thing since it reveals which sites do a phony half-assed review to try and get some affiliate money versus which sites actually subjectively go through the free discs.

So far already two sites have been caught on this one.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And maybe the lack of DTS on "Groundhog Day" is not a bad thing since it reveals which sites do a phony half-assed review to try and get some affiliate money versus which sites actually subjectively go through the free discs.

At least my reviews are GENUINELY half-assed!
However, I don't think the mistakes stem from greediness related to affiliate money or free discs. I think it's just laziness, arrogance and/or carelessness. God knows I've made my own share of dumb mistakes; in MY Groundhog review, I referred to Bill Murray's The Man Who Wasn't There - I meant The Man Who Knew Too Little. Stupid, I know, but at least it wasn't something that indicated I hadn't watched the DVD.
I suppose one has to give a little credit to the ONE site of the two that actually quickly corrected the erroneous review. The OTHER site still claims the disc has DTS, despite the fact we know the webmaster is aware of the mistake - if that's not arrogance, I don't know what is...

 

[LukeB]

God knows I've made my own share of dumb mistakes; in MY Groundhog review, I referred to Bill Murray's The Man Who Wasn't There - I meant The Man Who Knew Too Little. Stupid, I know, but at least it wasn't something that indicated I hadn't watched the DVD.

I actually noticed that error and the fact that you said it was from 1996. Hehehe.
Anyway, I agree with your statement that an error like this does not take away all credibility (But I *AM* never returning to your site over the MWKTL fiasco ), but it certainly doesn't reflect nicely upon a site when reviews are revealed to be that drastically inaccurate. Sure, you might not have to view the entire movie to judge the DVD quality, but you should at least notice if a DTS track isn't there.
Still DVD File's reviews are usually high-quality, and this problem aside is not too big a deal, but you're right in that it does give attention to the fact that many reviews on sites are not done by the book (that is to say, discs are not completely explored).
Just an observation.

 

[Adam Barratt]

Sure, a minor factual error is forgiveable. So is a minor technical error, but this was neither. The reviewer actually commented on the quality of a non-existent soundtrack. That isn't an error, that's an out and out lie.

Adam

 

[Julian Lalor]

I suspect the reviewer was comparing the DD 5.1 track with the DD 2.0 track and just didn't pick up (or see on his receiver) the lack of a DTS signal. That, of course, doesn't explain why he stated both tracks were significantly better than the previous DD2.0 track. I realised something was suspect about their reviews when Moulin Rouge was reviewed as being 97 minute long, and the reviewer noted the time length, when in fact the film is 126 minutes long. That error, too, was corrected without comment.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Sure, you might not have to view the entire movie to judge the DVD quality

I disagree. Too many DVDs vary too much throughout their running time for me to feel comfortable judging them based on partial observations. I hope I don't sound arrogant, but when I review something, I insist on reviewing the WHOLE thing. The entire movie, all the extras, everything - I think I owe it to the readers to know of what I speak when I steer them one way or another. Obviously others disagree and feel they just need to "sample" a DVD, but that's the easy - and cheesy - way to do it, and I won't compromise. Yeah, it takes a lot longer, but better to do it right...