Michael Clayton HDD Review

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by drb124

They only give it 3.5 stars, but the entire time they talk about how the problems come from the director's intent rather than a bad transfer. I'm not saying it was reference material, but I felt it was a solid 4 star transfer. If a transfer is transparent to the master or at least very close, then that is all that can be desired. I don't feel that it is fair to give a bad rating just because something doesn't pop off the screen. Any opinions?

That was one of my reviews actually, from when I worked at HDD

The reason for the discrepancy is actually a simple one. At HDD, at least in 2007 and 2008, reviewers were instructed to score and critique video transfers based on how each presentation fared against other Blu-ray releases. In other words, they relied on a more subjective tier system in which the visual "wow factor" and impact of a transfer were prioritized in a reviewer's opinion/score. (How does film X compare to the best or worst BD transfers on the market?) Yes, Peter's review of 'Halloween' bucked that trend, but that wasn't standard operating procedure at HDD.

Here, reviewers follow a different philosophy in which one of the key measures of a transfer is its faithfulness to its source. Were I to review 'Michael Clayton' in this system, the score would be higher and the tone of my analysis would be slightly different.

Again, I can't speak on behalf of HDD or address their current review/scoring system (of which I'm not personally familiar) -- nor do I want to spark a debate about which philosophy better serves a site's readers -- but I thought an explanation of the 'Michael Clayton' review would at least satisfy your curiosity