We just saw Avatar today. It was Fern Gully for adults. It was nice to look at, but that novelty wears and the film drags as the plot, dialogue, and character development are just side notes to the spectacle (which itself becomes a bit dull as the there are no great visual surprises in the second half of the film).
Just got done watching A Scanner Darkly for the third or fourth time. It's my favorite of all the PKD film adaptations. I think Linklater does a great job of projecting Dick's paranoia and fear onto the screen. He's clearly a big PKD nerd; his film Waking Life is more or less an hour and a half dialogue about PKD-related themes and philosophy. I really hated Waking Life, though. He seemed to want to express all of these fascinating ideas, but he didn't know how to form a story around them, and thus the film is a meandering mess of ideas without any characters to relate to or feel sympathy towards.
I'm currenting in the middle of watching "Drag me to hell" I gotta say it's a really great horror movie, though my plan to read through my backlog of newspaper while watching a movie is actually not working because the movie is so intense... Not for the faint of heart.
//finished the movie, the movie really does live up to it's name. I also felt a lot of in jokes to Evil dead in this movie but no Bruce Campbell cameo...
Watched Paranoid Park. Not entirely sure how I feel about it at this point. Didn't care about any of the characters, was slightly bored at times, but I made it through and I don't feel like I didn't enjoy it. Dialogue was clunky, wasn't surprised to learn most of the actors were non-professionals. I'm not against that, Gummo is all non-professionals and it's one of my favorite movies. It's weird, the conversations sounded like real conversations dumb teenagers would have, which seems like a great concept but somehow that took me out of the film. Seems like "real" actors having tight conversations would have made a more convincing film. I'm really torn on this one. Has anyone else seen it? I'd like some other opinions.
In other news, I am very upset the local theater isn't showing The Road.
Yeah, calling it Ferngully is rather mean. Avatar doesn't have a rap-musical number or Tim Curry.
Thus, I called it Fern Gully for Adults. To call it Pocahontas seems less accurate because [SPOLERS] the movie has the exact story progression and plot of Fern Gully (and even some strikingly similar scenes and images) and in the end the native people are successful. How did the Native Americans make out in the end of the Pocahontas legend? Oh, yeah, horribly slaughtered by the invaders. Also, shut your filthy, filthy mouth about Fern Gully and Tim Curry. :P
My childhood begs to differ. If it is a kids' movie that kids like, then it worked on some level. I would probably not re-watch it now (maybe once I have a child) to keep from spoiling it; however, I remember liking it enough that I still remember the song "Raining Like Magic" word for word.
When we're children, we like everything. We have very little to no taste whatsoever, I thought Batman and Robin was the greatest thing ever when I was a kid, and now I know better.
And I was more thinking the Disney-fied version of Pocahontas.
The Na'Vi are an almost literal example of the Disney-fied version of Pocahontas. Unlike the myths around Native Americans the Na'Vi truly have the power to communicate with the flora and fauna of their world. It is this direct connection that makes the strip mining of their world all the more evil.
Because of the way Netflix recommends movies, and I finally had time to watch them, last night was a bit of a Leonardo DiCaprio fest as I watched both Blood Diamond and Body of Lies. Blood Diamond was absolutely amazing, from start to finish. Very good characters and acting, with one of the best anti-heroes I've seen in a film in a long time. Body of Lies was pretty good, but it didn't really surprise me at all. Just a typical action flick in a modern/controversial setting.
Oh, also picked up Inglorious Basterds on Blu-Ray. Sooo good.
Ferngully was one of those things that I loved as a child (fairies!) and my mom hated. It was kind of like those Serendipity books. Now I look back and cringe.
Rather than using the same old "stuff flying at you" 3-D this movie used it to add depth to scenes.
I have a serious gripe with 3D that goes beyond the obvious overuse of "stuff flying at you" dilemma; the use of focus to draw he viewers attention.
In photography as well as in cinematography, focus is used in addition to lighting and composition to draw the eye of the audience to the salient parts of a scene. This is a very powerful tool and instrumental to visual storytelling. Now consider a 3-D scene (animated or still). If the scene is rendered "in focus" you can look at any object in the scene and that object will be in focus and in this way will seem quite real. The problem that arises is that one loses the main tool of directing the attention of the viewer. Also, objects out of the focal plane that the viewer is not looking at should be blurry which is not the case.
If, instead, focus is used in rendering to draw the viewers eye, there will be 3-D objects in the scene that are rendered out of focus / blurry. This works perfectly and creates a real sense of 3D, avoiding the aforementioned problem, as long as the viewers attention is retained where intended. When it fails the result is that you end up looking at an object, e.g. in the background, that's just a blurry blob when your brain expects it to be in focus (after all you are looking at a 3-D scene).
So to bring my rambling back in line with the thread, I recently saw Coraline in 3-D and though the movie was really nice, I was pulled out of the immersive experience several times due to this focus issue.
Ferngully was one of those things that I loved as a child (fairies!) and my mom hated. It was kind of like those Serendipity books. Now I look back and cringe.
That was the same thing with for The Pagemaster and Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland. I don't exactly cringe at the latter, but having read the old Winsor McCay comics, I wished that movie didn't turn out to be the mess it is now. Had Miyazaki stayed attached to it, it could have turned out really well.
Rather than using the same old "stuff flying at you" 3D this movie used it to add depth to scenes.
I have a serious gripe with 3D that goes beyond the obvious overuse of "stuff flying at you" dilemma; the use of focus to draw he viewers attention.
In photography as well as in cinematography, focus is used in addition to lighting and composition to draw the eye of the audience to the salient parts of a scene. This is a very powerful tool and instrumental to visual storytelling. Now consider a 3-D scene (animated or still). If the scene is rendered "in focus" you can look at any object in the scene and that object will be in focus and in this way will seem quite real. The problem that arises is that one loses the main tool of directing the attention of the viewer. Also, objects out of the focal plane that the viewer is not looking at should be blurry which is not the case.
If, instead, focus is used in rendering to draw the viewers eye, there will be 3-D objects in the scene that are rendered out of focus / blurry. This works perfectly and creates a real sense of 3D, avoiding the aforementioned problem, as long as the viewers attention is retained where intended. When it fails the result is that you end up looking at an object, e.g. in the background, that's just a blurry blob when your brain expects it to be in focus (after all you are looking at a 3-D scene).
So to bring my rambling back in line with the thread, I recently saw Coraline in 3D and though the movie was really nice, I was pulled out of the immersive experience several times due to this focus issue.
This. I share this same viewpoint and I don't think I could have articulated it better than Timo has.
Wow, I thought no one was with me on disliking 3D as a gimmick that adds little to film and often takes away from it.
I have the same gripe you do, but is it from the same perspective as mine? I honestly get sick of how everybody raves when an "amazing" 3D picture comes. I just stand there wondering such things like "Why does it deserve all this praise?", "Does nobody remember that there have been films that have been breakthroughs in 3D animation before, and people reacted the same way?"
If it's gimmicky 3D, it has no place in the movie. I maintain, however, that Coraline was a good use of 3D, adding depth and complexity to the shots in a movie that had an aesthetic which was benefited by additional depth.
If it's gimmicky 3D, it has no place in the movie. I maintain, however, thatCoralinewas a good use of 3D, adding depth and complexity to the shots in a movie that had an aesthetic which was benefited by additional depth.
I thought it distracted from the movie far more than it added, but personal taste is personal taste.
I've actually recently watched a few Disney and Pixar (animated) features I've either never seen or not seen for a long time. Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Rescuers, The Lion King, Toy Story and a bug's life.
If it's gimmicky 3D, it has no place in the movie. I maintain, however, thatCoralinewas a good use of 3D, adding depth and complexity to the shots in a movie that had an aesthetic which was benefited by additional depth.
Well, my problem is not that 3D is gimmicky, but that it is at odds with the fundamentals of visual story telling. It is a question of cognitive psychology (which I know very little about) whether the the problems I mentioned are matters of acclimatization or not.
I've recently been watching the worst movies Netflix streaming has to offer, then writing about them on Simply Syndicated's blog. Last night was Crossworlds, and tonight I think shall be perhaps The Pest. Both are evil.
Comments
Very lovely movie. Excellent characters and definitely the best songs. Though I still hold the two disney movies as equal.
//finished the movie, the movie really does live up to it's name. I also felt a lot of in jokes to Evil dead in this movie but no Bruce Campbell cameo...
In other news, I am very upset the local theater isn't showing The Road.
And I was more thinking the Disney-fied version of Pocahontas.
Oh, also picked up Inglorious Basterds on Blu-Ray. Sooo good.
In photography as well as in cinematography, focus is used in addition to lighting and composition to draw the eye of the audience to the salient parts of a scene. This is a very powerful tool and instrumental to visual storytelling. Now consider a 3-D scene (animated or still). If the scene is rendered "in focus" you can look at any object in the scene and that object will be in focus and in this way will seem quite real. The problem that arises is that one loses the main tool of directing the attention of the viewer. Also, objects out of the focal plane that the viewer is not looking at should be blurry which is not the case.
If, instead, focus is used in rendering to draw the viewers eye, there will be 3-D objects in the scene that are rendered out of focus / blurry. This works perfectly and creates a real sense of 3D, avoiding the aforementioned problem, as long as the viewers attention is retained where intended. When it fails the result is that you end up looking at an object, e.g. in the background, that's just a blurry blob when your brain expects it to be in focus (after all you are looking at a 3-D scene).
So to bring my rambling back in line with the thread, I recently saw Coraline in 3-D and though the movie was really nice, I was pulled out of the immersive experience several times due to this focus issue.