Quake3World

Interesting article on 3D:

Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

"I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

nice link. thx

MKJ wrote:I wonder. you know beforehand that a movie like the Green Hornet is going to be nothing more than a hollow sfxfest - now with threedee!
why do you go out and watch it anyway? :/

I thought because it had Seth Rogan it might be entertaining. I was wrong.

Doombrain wrote:nothing else to do (or anyone else to do)

Hey angryfoureyes...I found something for you to do: toner convention

good read Lawl. The funny thing is, I have made most of these observations to myself every time i watched a 3D movie, but that bit about image choppiness is very interesting, I always thought it was all a matter of low fps more or less instead of a physical limitation.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

MKJ wrote:I wonder. you know beforehand that a movie like the Green Hornet is going to be nothing more than a hollow sfxfest - now with threedee!
why do you go out and watch it anyway? :/

I thought because it had Seth Rogan it might be entertaining. I was wrong.

hmmeh

remember this next time you "blame the consumer", k?

Are you still a consumer if you download shitty cam versions for free and watch by yourself at home?

No.

Agreed.

But I am pretty sure that you're a huge consumer of Kleenex if you jack off to pictures of the ex-wife who divorced you and cry yourself to sleep every night.

Not sure though.

MKJ wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I thought because it had Seth Rogan it might be entertaining. I was wrong.

hmmeh

remember this next time you "blame the consumer", k?

fuck u...

bad company

1972 with jeff bridges

yea you know it was kinda ok

The Losers

Perfectly acceptable mindless popcorn movie. Even a few chuckles here and there.
Haven't seen the A-Team movie yet, but that should be like this, only with more recognizable characters.


Stone

Fucking
You can just see De Niro and Norton both thinking: "Yeah, he's an interesting actor, let's do this project together".
(At least, I don't remember seeing them together in a movie before?)
Little did they know the script is one of the most boring yawnfests that got shat out in the past 5 years. Fucking tedious.

But what really slaughtered it was Milla Jovovich getting naked.
She probably prides herself for being 'all natural', etc., but with teats bigger than tits, one wishes she *had* shit done.

Plan B wrote: Fucking
You can just see De Niro and Norton both thinking: "Yeah, he's an interesting actor, let's do this project together".
(At least, I don't remember seeing them together in a movie before?)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227445/ (wasn't half bad)

Thanks, gonna check that one out.

The Thaw

I'll admit, I have this morbid fascination where I like to watch movies dealing with the destruction of humanity.
Be it zombie apocalypse, aggressive viruses, meteors on a collision course with Earth, aliens out to harvest our...whatever, I eat that shit up.
Probably some misanthropy I cultivated over the years.

Anyways, desperately wanting to see a movie in that genre, I searched imdb and came across this stinker.

Please do not watch.
Very weak "The Thing" ripoff; poorly executed CGI shit (inch long parasites, no cool stuff), annoying actors and as a bonus bloated Val Kilmer on sedatives.
(What the fuck happened to that guy?)

In that case you might also not want to check out:

Skyline 2/10
All the inhabitants of LA get eaten and crushed by outer space aliens that use human brains to power their machines or something stupid like that. Unspeakably bad actors form a band of survivors that run between apartment buildings trying to avoid blatant CGI ripoffs of aliens you've seen in a dozen other movies, whilst screaming senseless dialogue that makes you want to punch yourself.

Really, really bad. Avoid.

Actually, I already did
Yup, awful.
Especially the ending OMG SPOILER ALERT where the guy defends the chick with his brain transferred into that alien body.
Although that was probably the entire movie's one and only redeeming factor, because it made me lulz over the credits.

Plus always sad to see actors like Dexter's Angel Batista grasp for straws in movies like this.
They've been perfectly casted for this one part, and it's kind of embarrassing to see how they think that's some sort of stepping stone to a Hollywood career.

LawL wrote:Interesting article on 3D:

Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

"I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

Comes off a little "crotchety old man" to me.

Image is dark: big deal, known side effect of this particular tech.
Image is smaller: honestly not sure what he's on about here, the few I've seen I didn't notice this effect
"Strobe effect": He's comparing new to a movie he edited in the 80s, the tech is different even if he says it isn't.
Eye focus issues: Whine. If most people are getting headaches after 20 minutes they don't seem to be talking about them or leaving the theatre. He might be on to something here but I'd like to hear from someone who understands the eye and focus and all the first. I mean, we're constantly changing focus every time we look at something anyway. You'd think the brain would actually be more confused about a picture that we would expect to have depth being flat.

Like I said what he says may be true but I don't see it condemning the industry and I doubt 3D will be a passing fad, now. He comes off as an old man shaking his fist and going "chaaaaaaange".

"Won't work and never will. Case closed." lol, sounds like a foot in mouth moment.

Fair Game = 7/10 - Another movie about the Valerie Plamegate outing that'll simply remind you just how fucking slimey the Bush administration was. Decent performances but I have no idea how accurate the script was to reality in terms of conversations...which sorta diminished the overal impact.

And of course if you're a Republican or right-wing warmongering shithead then this movie will do nothing but further convince you that Joe Wilson was a traitor...because you're a fucking moron.

The Big Bang = 5.5/10 - An minimally entertaining film undermined by horrible acting, shitty production values and a throughly worthless plot.

Sienna Guillory is so hot, she really should do porn.

Bronson - 8/10

Tom Hardy was fucking brilliant

EtUL wrote: Eye focus issues: Whine. If most people are getting headaches after 20 minutes they don't seem to be talking about them or leaving the theatre. He might be on to something here but I'd like to hear from someone who understands the eye and focus and all the first. I mean, we're constantly changing focus every time we look at something anyway. You'd think the brain would actually be more confused about a picture that we would expect to have depth being flat.

Like I said what he says may be true but I don't see it condemning the industry and I doubt 3D will be a passing fad, now. He comes off as an old man shaking his fist and going "chaaaaaaange".

"Won't work and never will. Case closed." lol, sounds like a foot in mouth moment.

As someone who gets headaches and painful eyestrain every time I'm forced to sit through this crap, sorry, I'm disagreeing with you.

The only reason I deal with it is because I have kids who want to see whateverthefuck, and I can't exactly send a 9yr old and 4 year old in by themselves. Once they're old enough, I'm definitely opting out.

The whole thing reeks of a gimmick to keep people paying retarded amounts for watching a movie in the cinema. It's an expensive novelty that gets pushed because the cinemas are desperate for any way to distinguish themselves from watching Netflix at home.

The cinematic experience with 3D glasses is distinctly worse than without. But people go to the cinema to experience novelties, not to have a good cinematic experience. I sincerely doubt 3DTV is going to catch on in NA and Europe (developing countries middle classes' still seem to have the opinion that "anything expensive is good as a status symbol, even if it's useless", so I'm sure places like Russia and India will eat up 3DTV because of their collective inferiority complexes).

Finally watched Inception, 10/10, etc. Amazing flick.

Therac-25 wrote:Finally watched Inception, 10/10, etc. Amazing flick.

True Grit 8/10
Didn't like it, but it's a fine movie

127 hours 6/10
Danny Boyle kind of phoned this in.

feedback wrote:True Grit 8/10
Didn't like it, but it's a fine movie.

How do you rate a movie you don't like 8/10?