Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyone watch this yet? I just came back from seeing it not expecting much as I don't really like Clooney or Bullock, but, hot damn I'm impressed. If you've seen it, what do you think?

I wasn't at all impressed by the trailers but I've seen a few good things said about it, is it really that good?

Agreed, the trailer sucked but the film has been getting great reviews from many critics, haven't seen it as I haven't had much free time lately.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I wasn't at all impressed by the trailers but I've seen a few good things said about it, is it really that good?

The impression I got was that Hollywood has been doing trailers that were basically explosions + swearing = win, so now that they had a movie which has basically neither of those things, they didn't know quite what do. The lack of music throughout most of the movie really serves to emphasise that space is one big and empty place.

The wife and I watched it last week.

She really, really enjoyed it and never looked at her watch through the whole movie.

I really enjoyed it. The visuals are spectacular, from the opening 1 shot sequence to the camera moving into and out of the helmets seemingly seamlessly.

I rarely go to the movies as it costs so much + 2 kids make it hard to arrange times to go but I am entirely happy with the money I spent on this.

Also the 3d is entirely spectacular.

But do not watch if you suffer from vertigo there are alot opf very disorienting scenes.

I liked it a lot. The acting was fairly solid, the spectacle was entertaining, and I had a good time. I'd recommend 3D IMAX if available, and I have given the thumbs down to a lot of 3D movies here. It really is good when it's done right.

I can't count how many times I blinked when shrapnel came flying at my face during the movie, I'm actually pretty happy I paid the extra to see it in 3D.

 Ouze wrote:
I liked it a lot. The acting was fairly solid, the spectacle was entertaining, and I had a good time. I'd recommend 3D IMAX if available, and I have given the thumbs down to a lot of 3D movies here. It really is good when it's done right.

My town has one cinema with one screen, I'm fairly sure both IMAX and 3d are illegal here.

The nearest cinema with 3d to me is 70 odd miles away through mountains and assorted wilderness.

Why the feth do I live in wales.

Why not watch it in 2D you see in 3D everyday anyways so what's so special about it besides 3D effects don't make the story anymore interesting and films still look impressive visually in 2D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also 2D's cheaper.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I liked it a lot. The acting was fairly solid, the spectacle was entertaining, and I had a good time. I'd recommend 3D IMAX if available, and I have given the thumbs down to a lot of 3D movies here. It really is good when it's done right.

My town has one cinema with one screen, I'm fairly sure both IMAX and 3d are illegal here.

The nearest cinema with 3d to me is 70 odd miles away through mountains and assorted wilderness.

Why the feth do I live in wales.

You're lucky, I live in Saudi Arabia.
Cinema actually is illegal here.
If I want to go to the cinema, I need my passport and a visa to leave the country!

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not watch it in 2D you see in 3D everyday anyways so what's so special about it besides 3D effects don't make the story anymore interesting and films still look impressive visually in 2D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also 2D's cheaper.

I generally find 3D actually makes a movie worse, so you're generally not missing much, Corpses. World War Z was a great example of that. Movies that are not natively shot in 3D and are converted to it afterward are usually way too dark as a byproduct of that process, and again, since they weren't designed for it, fast-moving scenes look like smudgy garbage. Not that they care, most of the time it's just a cheap way to get an extra $3 per ticket for the same lousy movie. Obviously WWZ had other problems that are beyond the scope of this thread but it's a useful example to the specific perils of 3D in 2013.

In this particular case, though, the whole movie really relies upon spectacle. Very nearly the entirety of the movie was rendered via CGI anyway, so you don't get the weird uncanny valley effect that happens when you blend real life stuff with CGI effects, and there is no post-production conversion needed, you can just re-render the movie as if it was natively produced.

Yes, it doesn't make the story better, but the story's a little thin anyway. If you saw the trailer, you already know essentially all of the plot. But actually seeing it unfold around you, on a giant screen with stuff flying at you and it's just at the edge of being disorienting - but not quite - that's pretty awesome.

I've only seen a handful of movies where the 3D actually improved the movie, but in my opinion, this is definitely one of them.

I still found it compelling enough to recommend in 2D though. Your mileage may vary.

 Ouze wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not watch it in 2D you see in 3D everyday anyways so what's so special about it besides 3D effects don't make the story anymore interesting and films still look impressive visually in 2D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also 2D's cheaper.

I generally find 3D actually makes a movie worse, so you're generally not missing much, Corpses. World War Z was a great example of that. Movies that are not natively shot in 3D and are converted to it afterward are usually way too dark as a byproduct of that process, and again, since they weren't designed for it, fast-moving scenes look like smudgy garbage. Not that they care, most of the time it's just a cheap way to get an extra $3 per ticket for the same lousy movie. Obviously WWZ had other problems that are beyond the scope of this thread but it's a useful example to the specific perils of 3D in 2013.

In this particular case, though, the whole movie really relies upon spectacle. Very nearly the entirety of the movie was rendered via CGI anyway, so you don't get the weird uncanny valley effect that happens when you blend real life stuff with CGI effects, and there is no post-production conversion needed, you can just re-render the movie as if it was natively produced.

Yes, it doesn't make the story better, but the story's a little thin anyway. If you saw the trailer, you already know essentially all of the plot. But actually seeing it unfold around you, on a giant screen with stuff flying at you and it's just at the edge of being disorienting - but not quite - that's pretty awesome.

I've only seen a handful of movies where the 3D actually improved the movie, but in my opinion, this is definitely one of them.

I still found it compelling enough to recommend in 2D though. Your mileage may vary.

Took the words right out of my mouth Ouze.

 Krellnus wrote:
Anyone watch this yet? I just came back from seeing it not expecting much as I don't really like Clooney or Bullock, but, hot damn I'm impressed. If you've seen it, what do you think?

I liked it. The exploding stuff was cool. I second on the vertigo. I intentionally escorted She Who Must Be Obeyed to the 2D version because I didn't want her barfing all that hyperexpensive food all over me. I don't need to SmelloVision.


I also discovered something called a "Soco with lime" shortly before.

I saw it and I liked it.

That frog was awesome, yes.