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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?