Movie Reviews 2.0

Oh and back to movies.

Finally saw Crank 2 at a friends place. All I have to say is WTF? I don't even know what score to give it after seeing it. So */10. :p

And...

Zombieland - 5/10. It's like it's trying to be a Tarantino film or something. Leave your brain at the door and it's a somewhat enjoyable action flick. Better than Inglourious Basterds at least. :p Got extra points from me just for having zombies.

Regards,
SB
 
Book of Eli. 6/10. Not bad but not great either.


Going to see Avatar again this weekend. Want some more 3D IMAX action before it's gone. Blu Ray version won't compare :(
 
RobertR1 said:
Book of Eli. 6/10. Not bad but not great either.


Going to see Avatar again this weekend. Want some more 3D IMAX action before it's gone. Blu Ray version won't compare :(
Click to expand...

So ELi is worth going to see at the movie theaters then? What about Daybreakers? Anyone see that yet?
 
The Invention of Lying - 8/10 - Ricky Gervais is great. Fairly tame, but still funny. For religious people, this maybe be more in the 1-5/10 range.
 
Ricky Gervais is great. Fairly tame, but still funny
Click to expand...
Perhaps the overrated comedian of the last decade, the office was OK, but of the 10+ other things Ive seen him do its man that embarrassingly bad

FWIW of the ~140 films ive seen over the last 3 months the ones to score high have been

targets 9 // Ive seen this multiple times I dont know why it strikes a chord, karloff last main picture perhaps
raising arizona 8
wait until dark 8
possession 8 // sam neils a crap actor, been in a few good horrors though (omen 3 excepted)
gran torino 8
tenebre 8 // Im not a dario fan but this is one of his better films (eg saw Stendhal Syndrome other day, 4/10)
the hustler 9 // of all the much praised newman films, this is the only decent one
boogie nights 8
 
Just saw Avatar in Real3D or whatever it's called. I liked it, but as has been said to death, simple story/plot but the world is quite incredible. Won't be watching again on bluray.
 
Watched Avatar 2 times in 3D cinema now, second time was even better :). Kinda fell in love with the movie, it's portrayed beautifully, anyone else who got to really like Neytiri? I just love her ! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comstedt said:
Watched Avatar 2 times in 3D cinema now, second time was even better :). Kinda fell in love with the movie, it's portrayed beautifully, anyone else who got to really like Neytiri? I just love her ! :)
Click to expand...

Saw Avatar in IMAX 3D. It deserves to be seen there.
 
James Cameron has #1 and #2 spot for highest grossing films. That's an honor no matter which way one looks at it.

Avatar's world was amazing. As everyone else has said the story is very simple and straightforward.
 
Saw Avatar last night too.

The 3D effect didn't hold together too well for the scenes where live actors were close to camera. Non-CGI objects seemed somehow set up on a few distinct planes -it felt like the depth differences were exaggerated in these cases, compared to open air shots. Got a bit nauseated of the effect. It felt pretty strange driving home afterwards and looking at the road ahead - I was more aware of real world's three-dimensionness (is that a word?) than ever before.

The story did not bother me too much otherwise, but I'm sick and tired of these stupid end-of-level-boss-fights.
 
WhiningKhan said:
The 3D effect didn't hold together too well for the scenes where live actors were close to camera. Non-CGI objects seemed somehow set up on a few distinct planes -it felt like the depth differences were exaggerated in these cases, compared to open air shots. Got a bit nauseated of the effect.
Click to expand...

I noticed the exact same thing. Like the actors were two dimensional, cast in a 3D space. Often the background seemed excessively blurred, unrealistically so for anyone with a modicum of experience in photography, to artificially enhance the sense of depth.

I'm presuming it's because those scenes weren't shot in stereo, that it was added digitally in post-production.
 
nutball said:
I noticed the exact same thing. Like the actors were two dimensional, cast in a 3D space. Often the background seemed excessively blurred, unrealistically so for anyone with a modicum of experience in photography, to artificially enhance the sense of depth.

I'm presuming it's because those scenes weren't shot in stereo, that it was added digitally in post-production.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly, the focus changes (which is standard stuff and OK in 2D films) were another annoying thing that I complained about but forgot from the post. It absolutely does not work in 3D, it's makes the audience feel like they suddenly developed an eyesight problem when everything farther than a few metres is a blurry mess.

Also, at least my vision failed to converge on some objects/actors that were closest to the camera - the problem was at worst with the live actors, which I attribute to the depth plane issue (and I think this is what caused my nausea). Jungle plants and other CGI stuff that also got 'close' did not seem that bad, even when eye could not handle them anymore.

Hasn't it been touted that they specifically developed stereo cameras for Avatar? Maybe the focal length or something used in these inside shots made it look unnatural.

One more thing: I don't know why, but the live actor shots always made me think of Wing Commander 3/4.

Still one: Sigourney Weaver's avatar was great - it's the only one that seemed really 'real' to me. Maybe it's just her recognizable face. The other avatars & real smurfs, while well done per se, made me always think "that's an animated character" deep down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, depth of field is something you can definitely throw out of the processing pipeline when you're rendering in 3D. It was interesting - the effect was only present in the beginning of Avatar, as if to point out that they left it out of the rest of the movie on purpose or something, not sure.
 
It's worth noting at this point that some of the scenes in Avatar were indeed post processed 3D, as one of the lenses has occasionally went wrong, but Cameron liked the performances, so they kept only one eye's view and had to re-create the other.
Not sure how many scenes were like this, or which ones, but it could have been the first briefing scene - that's the only one where I've had the feeling that the people were cardboard cutouts.

The single eye closeups on Jake, however, were working amazingly well. Re-watching the trailers makes you remember the difference a lot stronger - in the theater you easily start to take the depth for granted.
 
I saw Avatar twice, once in 3D and once in the standard format. I have to admit, I don't know what all the fuss is about regarding 3D movies. I didn't see it in IMAX, so I don't know what the difference is between what I saw and what IMAX has in store. There were parts of the movie that just looked awful and difficult to see, maybe it's because I wear glasses, but the movie looked washed out. Is IMAX the way to go with 3D movies? Because if the difference is night and day, the next time I decide to watch a movie in 3D, I'll watch it in IMAX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
B
The melodrama of making the Miami Vice movie
Replies
4
Views
2K
101998
1
R
  • Locked
Reverend at The Pulpit #12
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
13K
Dave Baumann
Dave Baumann
P
Matrix Revolution. WARNING spoiler
Replies
5
Views
2K
Sazar
S
R
Reverend at The Pulpit #3
Replies
14
Views
3K
pcchen
P
Back
Top