Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Gulliver's Travels

This is topic Gulliver's Travels in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001737

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2010, 12:19 AM:

***

Now here is a movie that clearly show why not all movies need to be made in/into 3D. I am not sure but I strongly believe that this film was converted after the fact, it doesn't matter, I don't need to know.

It was filmed in Panavision and I saw it 35mm 2D. The movie is not bad, it got a number of lame laughs from me(even though the laughs have been done before).

I really like Emily Blunt, so that is what sold me on this movie, also the fact that I have seen everything else as well. She is ok in this movie and so is Jack Black. I think Emily Blunt is due for a break out role anyday now.

The plot is silly and the special effects work but are nothing special. The Titanic moment, Transformers thing at the end and the Empire Strikes Back homage got a big laugh out of me.

The biggest problem with this movie is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Its not really a little kids movie and its not really a adult movie, its somewhere in between thus an audience and doing well at the box office are hard imagine. If it just knew where it should be, it really could of done well. Movie kind of reminded me of Jumanji, but that was a long, long time ago so maybe not.

Overall I give it three stars as its not bad, its not great. I liked it most because it clearly shows that not all movies need to be made into 3D. I think parents will agree. There were a number of laughs, silly plot and Emily Blunt who was just OK.

Format: 35mm film with a horrible hairline stratch right done the middle. (unless there was staff screenings. This was just the 9th run of this print)
Sound: Dolby Something. . Or maybe Ultra Stereo, perhaps Mono, maybe stereo..could of been Digital..heck WTF, it might of been Dolby 7.1. (it was BAD)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2010, 01:11 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
This was just the 9 run of this print

It only takes ONE misthread to permanently damage a print forever. There is no rule saying that misthread needs to come late in the print's life. It can happen at any time when careless people handle it. Carelessness knows no bounds.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-27-2010, 05:17 AM:

....now you know why the push for digital has gone rapid ....

No complications in getting the movie on the screen when it comes to digital: Either is on the screen or it isn't.