What's new

"Now Showing"

gavin

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
LFTL said:
I never understood how Imax was three dimensional.. 3D is when things like, pop out of the screen, whereas, Imax is just a BIG screen.. Not really 3D.
Yes, it's a big screen, but you can still show 3D movies on it.
 

furie

SBOPD
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
gavin said:
Yes, it's a big screen, but you can still show 3D movies on it.
What will they think of next? Bomb! (or something equally as inane).
 

LiveForTheLaunch

Well-Known Member
Me? I'm not whack I just always wondered by people call Imax theatres "3D" when the shows they play are not even 3D anyway. I mean I'm sure they COULD play 3D movies but when I've gone, they never did.. And still called it 3D.
 

Ollie

Well-Known Member
LiveForTheLaunch said:
Me? I'm not whack I just always wondered by people call Imax theatres "3D" when the shows they play are not even 3D anyway. I mean I'm sure they COULD play 3D movies but when I've gone, they never did.. And still called it 3D.
IMAX does show films in 3D. It's just a 3D film on a huge screen so stuff comes out the screen at you. It's much more immersive as it's huge.
 

Nicky

Member
I saw HP6 in IMAX 3D (well the beginning of it). It is completely immersive but it is sickening if the camera is swooping.
 

LiveForTheLaunch

Well-Known Member
I SAID I KNOW THEY PLAY 3D MOVIES ON IT :p . I said I don't know why they still advertise it as being 3D when they play NON-3D movies on the screen.

Anyway! For law we watched Brokedown Palace.. Premise sounded kinda boring, but the movie was actually really good. Not a top tenner by any means, but it kept me intrigued and I actually didn't fall asleep which is surprising considering that is the usual result when I watch movies at school. The end was really sad though, almost made me cry!

8/10
 

furie

SBOPD
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
So Coraline on Saturday at the 3D-I_Furie. Crap 3D setup with coloured lenses and the screen is too small.

The film wasn't much cop either. It was one of those films where you have to engage the enthusiasm in your bored four year old to watch it, just to see if it gets any better.

The animation is utterly breath taking though, really gorgeous. It doesn't make up for a pretty flat and shallow story which never really engages. Great idea, beautifully implemented, as deep, engrossing and well written as Taylor's blog ;)

7/10 for eye candy.
 

Blaze

Active Member
I actualy watched Coraline the other say and thought it was actualy quite a good little film. The animation is staggeringly good, although the dvd has coloured lenses rather than the new ones you got if you saw it in a cinema. It's not an amazing film, but it was much better than I thought it would be, and pretty creepy for a PG.

7/10

Looking forward to Fantastic Mr. Fox, about time they made a film about the best kids book ever, even if I would have though they could not make a film out of it and am not happy it has been Americanised and changed.

One film I am not looking forward to is Cirque Du Freak. I have read the books a few times, and really, really liked them, but the film has ruined them. I know a film will be different, but the main plot points have all been completely changed, and casting John C. Reily as a character who is meant to be dark, harsh and not at all funny is unbelievably bad casting. I was going to see this anyway, good or bad, because I still love the books, but now after hearing reviews and seeing trailers, I will be avoiding it like the plague.
 

Ploddish

Member
Blaze said:
...and casting John C. Reily as a character who is meant to be dark, harsh and not at all funny is unbelievably bad casting.
You mean that pretty good serious actor? Who's been nominated for quite a few Screen Actor Guild Awards?

I don't have high expectations for the film, but this bit about him being miscast is rubbish. He's a very good actor, who does serious well, and I have full confidence that he'll do a good job.
 

Ormerod

Active Member
John C Reilly is a great actor, particularly for me in Gangs of New York. He has proved to me he can do serious.
 

Blaze

Active Member
He is mostly known for comedy, and looking at the trailers, thats what he has gone for. They should have picked someone else or forced him to act properly. Shame really, but it's not the biggest problem, miscast actors can still do well, it's just that here it is one part of a disasterously made film and I hope they don't make films out of the rest of the books and ruin them the same way the first three will be.

If it turns out good, I will glady take it all back, but there is nothing at all suggesting it will be.
 
9 Looks awesome and so does triangle and zombieland. Saw 6 looks.............interesting! Unfortunately I have to wait for the dvd. ¬¬
 

Slayed

Active Member
Blaze said:
He is mostly known for comedy, and looking at the trailers, thats what he has gone for. They should have picked someone else or forced him to act properly.
I'm not having that - he's an excellent actor that doesn't need to be "forced to act properly"! And his straight/comedy ratio is about 50/50.

He may well turn out to be miscast in this - but you can't judge a film, or an entire performance, by a trailer. See the film first, and then cry foul if you want; until then it's just conjecture.

I saw Moon (ok but under-developed), Taking of Pelham 123 (pointless), The Hangover (annoying) and Up (stunning) recently. I'm still salivating over that 5 minute 2012 clip though!
 

Ollie

Well-Known Member
^I've not been impressed by 2012 so far. It's just a film with over the top special effects, massive explosions and unrealistic close calls. Watching that 5 minute clip from it didn't excite me at all. There was so much going on with things being destroyed that you don't know where to look. There was loads of times when they came within inches of getting hit and when they flew the plane in between the two falling buildings I just thought "forget it". I'm all for films with special effects but when it seems dumb and over the top like that I loose interest. Grats to the guys and gals that did the visuals though but I've seen nothing with that film that makes me want to go to see it yet.
 

Ormerod

Active Member
silenthillXD said:
Saw 6 looks.............interesting!

I beg to differ. There's nothing at all interesting about Saw. The ending of the first one was cool and original {at the time} now it's just become cliche, another teen horror fad.
 
Top