
does not great cinema make
But it should be some nice eyecandy, as long as you can watch it in 2d and aren't forced to sit through fuzzy vision for 3 hours
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:08,
archived)
But it should be some nice eyecandy, as long as you can watch it in 2d and aren't forced to sit through fuzzy vision for 3 hours

it's just there to be enjoyed - not analysed
I'd happily watch this kind of thing 20 times over than be forced to sit through typical Oscar Fodder
:_)
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:10,
archived)
I'd happily watch this kind of thing 20 times over than be forced to sit through typical Oscar Fodder
:_)

;P
*quaffs mead from silver goblet and watches 7 hour long film noir from 1934 featuring one actor in a furnitureless room*
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:13,
archived)
*quaffs mead from silver goblet and watches 7 hour long film noir from 1934 featuring one actor in a furnitureless room*

I saw that once
the highlight is when he scratches his nose at 6:34:12
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:16,
archived)
the highlight is when he scratches his nose at 6:34:12

Yeh, eye candy I guess - It's certainly a "cinema" movie
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:11,
archived)

mainly because they only had one leap out the screen at you moment, and the rest added depth to big vistas. I can't help feeling that things whizzing past constantly and monsters leaping about is going to be quite nausea inducing
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:18,
archived)

watching Flesh for Frankenstein on C4 the other night, it seemed to all be in sepia, and gave me a headache, but it worked... sort of, even if the 3D effects were all a bit blurry.
I've not seen anything NEW in 3D
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:28,
archived)
I've not seen anything NEW in 3D

On telly it's not quite that easy and therefore, looks a bit poo.
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:32,
archived)

So everything is darker and less vibrant than normal, but its better than the sepia look of old.
Which is why I'd rather watch the film in 2d. But its not being described as a film its a rollercoaster - just without the excitement, vibration and wind, and with lost of long story bits.
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:33,
archived)
Which is why I'd rather watch the film in 2d. But its not being described as a film its a rollercoaster - just without the excitement, vibration and wind, and with lost of long story bits.

I think it's the use of 3D to add depth, rather than throw stuff at your face, which made it effective and subtle, rather than gimmicky.
I'm looking forward to Avatar a lot. I bet I'll be disappointed, but for some reason I'm a bit excited about it.
Possibly because I'm tall and blue and it's rare to see my point of view in films.
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:56,
archived)
I'm looking forward to Avatar a lot. I bet I'll be disappointed, but for some reason I'm a bit excited about it.
Possibly because I'm tall and blue and it's rare to see my point of view in films.

It was horribly gimmicky, weird stuff stood out that distracted from the story - The first thing I remember of that film is a bowl of peas on the dinner table!
Terrible film, not a patch on Corpse Bride or Nightmare, appalling adaptation of the source too
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:59,
archived)
Terrible film, not a patch on Corpse Bride or Nightmare, appalling adaptation of the source too

I loved the book, and I like the film a lot. Very different, certainly not a direct port over, and with a different feel, but I had a good time. I really liked the 3D, I didn't find it intrusive at all. The noly "showy" bit I remember is the flight over the garden.
If you want bad modern 3D, the excellently shite "The Final Destination" is a great example of a poorly made film that could have nonetheless been a good laugh, crippled by un-necessary special effects and idiotic, poorly implemented 3D.
( ,
Fri 4 Dec 2009, 11:38,
archived)
If you want bad modern 3D, the excellently shite "The Final Destination" is a great example of a poorly made film that could have nonetheless been a good laugh, crippled by un-necessary special effects and idiotic, poorly implemented 3D.