my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Disney/Pixar "UP" (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Disney/Pixar "UP" Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-06-2009 06:22 PM                     Cinemark Movies 14, Mishawaka, IN Auditorium: #1, RealD Digital 3D Presentation: seems to be fixed! The last time I spoke of auditorium 1, there were some presentation issues. The sound system was having some trouble with humming, distortions, and missing channels. Today's screening had none of that, and sounded wonderful. A very nice and balanced mix. As for the film, wonderful. Pixar scores again. Films love to draw us in to the experience with big picture and amazing sound. I think Pixar has found another dimension that some really fail to capture: emotion. I was totally sucked into these characters, especially Carl. Although I'm only 27, I can still identify his longing of the past and the way things used to be. I think a lot of the time we can get caught up in the same kind of traps. It's only when we realize this, that there is more than what was, that we can move along. It's a brilliant film. I agree that the 3D does not really do much to help the film, which I think in and of itself is a gimmick. I blame Disney though, not Pixar. I have a feeling the Mouse was pushing for Pixar to start using 3D, even though their films do not need such a gimmick. Sure, the 3D effects were very nice, but it did not outweigh the disadvantages of current implementations: lower light and those bloody glasses. I'd like to see this in 2D, whether digitally or on film (done right). I'd rate this as one of Pixar's better pieces, especially the flashbacks at the beginning. The ending drags a little bit, and at times gets a little zany. However, I think that was the point, and it makes sense in the world of this film. I'm highly curious to see Toy Story 3 as well, after a funny little teaser. AJG  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-06-2009 09:26 PM                        Here is a link to Roger Ebert's blog review of the film. Read the comments to see what actual adult moviegoers think of 3-D. The Ebert Blog  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-06-2009 09:49 PM                     Interesting read Mike. I agreed with one of the posters in that the 3D actually took me out of the film a bit. I knew I had glasses on, and I knew I was supposed to be "experiencing" 3D. In the end, I felt I was part of an attraction, not a film screening. I too took my glasses off a couple times, and the brightness was far greater, along with more detailed color. Made me wish they were showing the film in 2D digital as well. I'm curious to see Avatar, but I really hope 3D dies off, and fast. If they can do 3D without glasses, I might be more interested. AJG  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-07-2009 08:58 PM                        I'm surprised hardly anybody has mentioned "Partly Cloudy," the short included with this film. I liked it a LOT better than "Presto," the short from Wall-E last year. I thought it was really pretty amazing the way it told a fairly complex story with no words. Are the animators on these shorts "in training" for work on features?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-07-2009 11:41 PM                        I rarely mention the shorts because I just don't care about them.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 06-08-2009 07:40 PM                     Joe, you going 'commando?'  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-08-2009 10:54 PM                     "For the birds" was my favorite short - being attached to "Monsters, INC"  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-09-2009 12:27 AM                        I am partial to "Boundin'" because it was written, vocalized and etc. by Bud Luckey, who is from Montana. (Missoula) "For the Birds" was great though and I think is about the funniest of all those shorts.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 06-09-2009 05:44 PM                     quote: Aaron Garman ...but I really hope 3D dies off, and fast. I'm not trying to flame, but should I take that as meaning because you don't like 3D, it shouldn't be an option for those of us who do? I can appreciate the problem if the only available option is 3D, but I've not yet seen a 3D movie in which a 2D version wasn't screening somewhere nearby (often in the same multiplex). I guess I should start a new thread to complain about all that color in "Becky Sharp."  |  IP: Logged Geena Phillips Expert Film Handler Posts: 198 From: Norcross, GA / USA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 06-09-2009 07:38 PM                        I was crying after the first fifteen minutes of UP both times that I saw it.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-11-2009 07:46 PM                     What I really mean is to see 3D die off in its current form. That current form involves gimmicky glasses, premium price, and poor light levels compared to a 2D screening. What really bugs me is when a awesome auditorium gets booked with a silly 3D film (not Up, because Up was GREAT) for weeks and a much better film gets bumped to the smaller, poorer house. I knew some folks that had this issue big time last summer with Journey to the Center of the Earth playing in a wonderful house while the Dark Knight did not get as great of a house. To me, going to a 3D film is like an entirely different art form compared to 2D films...it's a different medium. AJG  |  IP: Logged Kyle Anderson Film Handler Posts: 86 From: Tyler, TX, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 06-13-2009 03:06 AM                     Thankfully, most places that have 3D houses were told not to install it on their huge screens because of the light issues (at least we were). Having 5/14 screens 3D (of different sizes) also gives a lot of options for placement.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-13-2009 08:38 PM                     And an obviously NOT-camcordered version of the short is already online here. Damn those movie theater people and their camcorders!!!  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 06-14-2009 02:28 PM                        I had bad experiences with both Real D and Dolby Digital 3-D movies before when the light level was very low and the projected image was dark and I did not enjoy the movie as much as I would have liked. After watching UP in 3-D yesterday, I feel differently about Real D now. So far, I saw Real D digital 3-D films at the Regal Dole Cannery in Honolulu on one of their larger screen but the Regal Pearl Highland only five minutes from my house has Real D now and that is where I saw UP yesterday in 3-D and it was superb! I suspect the difference between the two venue has to do with the size of the screen. The Dole Cannery #10 sits about 600 hundred people and the Pearl Highland has seats for approximately 300 patrons with a screen much smaller than the Dole. The Dolby 3-D at Consolidated's Ward Centre is in one of their larger houses and I recall the presentatIon of MY BLODDY VAKLENTINE 3-D Was extremely dark and worse than the Dole. The company now has a Dolby 3-D system at their Mililani 16 and I have to check theirs out too. Most of the Milililani screens are also small so I suspect the picture quality will be better but not by much because I understand Dolby does not require a silver screen like Real D. As far as the film, UP was excellent and I do not agree 3-D was not necessary. I saw the film with both eyes open in 3-D and closed my left eye and watched a few minutes in 2-D and 3-D was much better. Why many prefer 2-D over 3-D is something I cannot understand when the presentation is flawless. Don't we see every thing in life in 3-D with both of our two eyes? "UP" without the usual 3-D gimmicks proved that good movies in the process works just like DIAL M FOR MURDER, KISS ME KATE & MISS SADIE THOMPSON did in the fifties. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 06-14-2009 03:40 PM                    quote: Claude S. Ayakawa Why many prefer 2-D over 3-D is something I cannot understand when the presentation is flawless. That's part of the "problem". We all see (and hear) things differently. Some people can't understand how you can not like Michael Jackson's music (or hard rock, or classic music, for that matter). How can you dispise something so "obviously" wonderful???? Some people, I like to call them "3D nuts" , are so tantalized by the film presentations in 3D they simply can't understand why doesn't everybody flock to 3D films. They just don't realize that, whatever it is that makes the 3D so visually appealing to them, is not shared by 90% of the population. quote: Claude S. Ayakawa Don't we see every thing in life in 3-D with both of our two eyes? Part of the explanation is that not everybody indeed sees in (the same) "3D", as about 10% of the population has visual system defects (amblyopia, estrabismus) which hinders their depth perception to something completely different to the average experience. Then, people with (geometrically) smaller heads (and usually the rest of the body as well), like children or perhaps some women, have their eyes closer together in space, giving them a reduced sense of "3D" during their everyday lives than someone with a large watermelon over his shoulders and eyes 3" apart. What the other 80% of the population sees, must be something in-between what the 3D-nuts and the 3D-impaired see. For them, the 3D is cool and all, but not something to die for, spectacular, and worth it of the extra $3 if, on top of that, it also means a dark picture and "stupid" glasses. Once the novelty wears off, and all it takes is a couple of films to get to that point, a large part of the general public doesn't give squat if a film is in 3D or not. And I wouldn't be surprised if the tendency to favor 3D presentations over 2D starts to reverse a few years down the road, as long as the 3D one remains more expensive. Problem comes when the "people in charge" is a 3D nut. Like say James Cameron or Dreamwork's Katzenberg. Cameron spent $$$$$ in Ghost of the Abyss and (I guess) thought it was wonderful in 3D. Well, it sucked for a lot of people who couldn't fuse the images they way he photographed them (and I don't blame them with those huge interaxials). My daughter, who has seen plenty of 3D in her life, us having many 3D systems at home and many films in that format, couldn't stand keeping the glasses on during the (traditional IMAX) presentation she saw of Ghost.... You can also tell when a theatre owner is a 3D nuts because he'll have 12 3D systems in all his 12 screens ....collecting dust. 3D is not for everybody and is not for every movie. But it does have a place and it's a lot of fun for a lot of people who like to have piranahs thrown at their faces And it can make $$$$. Specially for RealD and Christie ... I mean, look at the current box office. You have a low budget stupid comedy nothing-out-of-the-ordinary, "The hangover" in 2D surpassing the grosses of a state of the art, wonderful, oscar worthit Pixar masterpiece in 3D. Obviously the producers of "The hangover" didn't think 3D (which in this day and age is very easy and cheap to make) was worthit of their time. If they believed the hype that "3D films make 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times more than 2D films", then no-doubt no-brainer most-all movies would get made in 3D, as producers are not stupid and they all like to gross 2, 3, 4 ... times more.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.