It depends on what type of "quality" you are talking about. There is purely the technical quality of the disc, which all depends on how well the transfer retains the audio and visual quality that the film makers intended (this assumes the source prints, recordings, etc., have not degraded or if they are then they have been restored by experts).
There is also the purely subjective quality of the cinematography. Some films are softer than others because of the format, the film stock (or these days, HD camcorder), the film processing. Some reviewers gave Eyes Wide Shut's disc a middling grade on video quality because it wasn't as sharp or detailed as most other releases. But the film was shot by the best director ever and a very talented cinematographer who were shooting on a specific film stock and then pushed two stops in processing. This allowed the film (shot mostly at night) to have a grainy, soft, dream-like quality. What you see on the disc is what I saw in the theaters. But some reviewers like sharp and detailed, so they were in effect passing judgement on the excellent cinematography in this film, though the transfer itself did exactly what it was intended to do: show the film makers' vision.
Which brings me to another point, a disc doesn't have to be sharp and detailed to take advantage of an HDTV. DVD simply didn't do Eyes Wide Shut justice because this grainy dreamlike quality didn't come across. Likewise, the Oscar-winning cinematography on Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, really lost something on DVD even though the film is pretty soft and grainy.
Another point: sharpness and detail aren't the same thing. Sharpness is how well things are defined, detail is how much picture information there is. For example, a DVD can as sharp as an HDTV when it comes to showing the edge of a backlit dark object, in fact it can actually be sharper (in theory, in certain situations), because a higher-resolution image can reveal a softness in the delineation between dark and bright that is resolved as a sharp line on a lower-resolution image. See Ansel Adam's book on the camera negative for more information than you probably want on this.
Detail is picture information. Reading a name on a character's name badge, that's detail. You can have detail without a lot of sharpness, and sharpness without a lot of detail.
Some technical issues that get in the way of high def heaven are that the HD transfer used for the disc could be a somewhat older one, perhaps one done on interlaced equipment, or perhaps from a 1080p or 2K scan, whereas the best scan of a 35mm film will come from a 4K scan. It may have been done carelessly. Things like edge enhancement or dynamic noise reduction or other things you frequently see on DVDs and other SD content may have been brought over to HD for no good reason. The Last Starfighter is one such example. I believe others have complained about 40 Year Old Virgin and Tremors suffering such treatment as well.
Also, depending on what variety of 35mm was used (Super35, anamorphic, matted, etc.) detail can very pretty widely. And stocks, apertures, and processing can all effect contrast, detail, and sharpness. Plenty of big budget movies were rather soft even in the theaters (Lord of the Rings, for example).