3D movies
Posted by: mudwolf on 19 March 2010
Finally not a 3D virgin anymore. I saw Alice in Wonderland a week ago. I thought the movie was great fun tho a bit long and everything happening so fast it was exhausting. I know it's getting luke warm reviews because Burton strayed from the original, but hey, every opera has played fast and loose for dramatic effects.
Burton and Dep really make a team, so much better than the Pirate movies.
On to 3D, it's an incredible technology that I'd pay the extra money, but the films have to have some deeper meaning and story, I"m not going to go just because it's a thriller/action movie with "great effects" Like upcoming Clash of the Titans or Transformers. The animation on Alice was quite wonderful, can't believe they can do fur so well and the plants were phenomenal from a horticulture standpoint.
Posted on: 30 March 2010 by TomK
As Alice is largely CGI I don't imagine that was an enormously difficult thing to do. I don't expect to see Citizen Kane in 3D any time soon.
Posted on: 30 March 2010 by Bananahead
You obviously don't understand the
Science.
Posted on: 31 March 2010 by Mr Underhill
Posted on: 31 March 2010 by TomK
quote:
Originally posted by Bananahead:
You obviously don't understand the
Science.
Very amusing and worth a look. He's one of my favourite critics but we can't all like every movie. I don't think anybody would claim Avatar was high art and I for one don't care. It was a two hour visual feast. I don't want Hamlet every time I go to see a film.
I suspect Mr Kermode would have enjoyed it more if it had been in black and white with subtitles and unintelligible Polish dialogue, and they'd all slit their wrists at the end.
Posted on: 01 April 2010 by tonym
Critics don't like fun films Tom.
Posted on: 01 April 2010 by Neill Ferguson
There is interesting comments in this months review of the new samsung 3d tv at the bottom of it in what hi fi.
Posted on: 01 April 2010 by Jet Johnson
quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
quote:
Originally posted by Bananahead:
You obviously don't understand the
Science.
Very amusing and worth a look. He's one of my favourite critics but we can't all like every movie. I don't think anybody would claim Avatar was high art and I for one don't care. It was a two hour visual feast. I don't want Hamlet every time I go to see a film.
I suspect Mr Kermode would have enjoyed it more if it had been in black and white with subtitles and unintelligible Polish dialogue, and they'd all slit their wrists at the end.
I've always noticed that the Guardian film reviews for foreign sub-titled films normally get 3 stars or more whereas the ratings for American/British movies generally get far less.
...That could be because only the better foreign films get reviewed ..or ...they really are generally better than the USA or Brit releases ...or ....The Guardian (albeit my fave paper) is too far up it's own intellectualised arse!
Posted on: 02 April 2010 by tonym
I've got a BluRay copy of Corraline which comes with a 3-D version on the disk & a pair of the old-type green and red specs but TBH it's pretty unwatchable. All the colour's drained out & it's quite blurry.
To use the latest type of 3-D I'll have to stump up for a new projector...
Posted on: 02 April 2010 by mudwolf
Read a review of Clash of the Titans, they trashed it. Sad because the original was such fun as a kid. Even saw it recently on TV with no commercials thankfully.
I think the technology will get better but like others have said if a film doesn't have a good plot or acting the 3D just ain't worth it. But then I don't watch the big action adventure films much now. I was sorry I spent money on the last Batman movie.
Posted on: 02 April 2010 by winkyincanada
I just returned from "How to Train Your Dragon" in 3D, and I must admit that I was very impressed. As well as being a fabulous movie, the 3D was spectacular. Better movie, and much more convincing 3D than Avatar. There might be something in this 3D after all.
The movie is highly recommended for ALL ages.
Posted on: 03 April 2010 by TomK
quote:
Originally posted by mudwolf:
Read a review of Clash of the Titans, they trashed it. Sad because the original was such fun as a kid. Even saw it recently on TV with no commercials thankfully.
So you've formed an opinion on a movie you haven't seen based on one review? Roger Ebert liked it. Does that make it good?
Posted on: 07 April 2010 by Adrian F.
Posted on: 07 April 2010 by winkyincanada
Posted on: 08 April 2010 by mudwolf
I don't have to see everything that is out there. Alice caught my attention. I'll wait for Titans to come out on bluray on Netflix. $18 to see a 3D movie, once in a while.
I pass up a lot of stuff good and bad.
I just loved the old movie, sword and sandels Saturday afternoon movies. Yehaa!
Now for some Sci-Fi, I missed Avatar too. I can wait.
I did see and enjoyed Cabinet of Dr Parnassus, enjoyed it very much. Nobody does fantasy like Terry and Burton.
Posted on: 30 April 2010 by Tuan
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
Nothing can substitute for a great plot, screen play, and great acting.
All these effects laden films seem to fall at the first hurdle, let alone the second or third!
The last film I watched was the old David Lean film with Alec Guiness [as Fagin] of Dickens' story, "Oliver Twist."
I suspect that this is likely to around long after most of these modern and effects dependant films have been totally forgotten.
The "3D" thing is simply a money making scam of seemingly little artistic signoficance [sp far at least], all IMHO, of course.
ATB from George
The so called "3D effect" only looks good for the first 10 min (in the Avatar film) then it becomes annoying for the rest of the movie.
