3-D Falling Flat

Back on March 9 of last year, I ranted about 3-D movies.  To recap: Really?  Over & over and everything that comes to the screen?  Pick and choose what would work best and don't over-saturate.  It's getting tiresome.

If you don't believe me, how about the new movie version of S. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.  It will be in 3-D.  To quote Mrs. Estelle Costanza in Seinfeld:  May I ask WHY?

And if you still don't believe me that this has becoming an annoying gimmick, apparently the film-going populace is also silently speaking out.  How?  Ticket sales for heavily promoted 3-D versions of movies are stacking in favor of their 2-D counterparts.  The article I read is here.

Future of film?  It didn't stick around the first time... why do they expect it to now that it's more flashy?

Don't get me wrong.  3-D is and can be cool.  And some films make perfect sense to be featured with that extra kick.  Just not every blasted thing that hits the screen.  It seems 3-D is only effective when it's rare.  It's only going to pop out at you when nothing else does.   Makes me wonder how the sales of 3-D TV are doing...

It's Okay to Be Two Dimensional...

3-D!

It's in 3-D!

Be excited, damn it!

It's a little difficult to be excited when it's nearly every single time now. I don't dislike 3-D. But I'm no big fan of it either. Especially since it's become the norm. In my opinion, 3-D used to mean something. Back in the day, with the red & blue glasses, it had been a gimmick. And it never really worked for films. Not very well, I mean. Yes, red & blue does "work," though somewhat crappily, and I fondly recall staring at my brother's King Kong poster, marveling at how the airplanes attacking him popped off the wall. And then the 'polarized' technology came about... and I fondly recall watch a movie at Walt Disney World in (OMG!) 3-D! It had been a truly new experience. Crystal clear images coming at me. (I distinctly remember lightning zipping my way, coming from the fingertips of a witch making me rather pleasantly uncomfortable. Maybe it's just because I like characters who can throw lightning from their hands.) But it had been wondrous, magical and exhilarating to see something THAT amazing. For quite a while since then, 3-D had only come out a few times of that caliber. But recently, it's ubiquitous. And it's starting to become rather annoying. Not everything has to be in 3-D.

Take, for example, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. From the previous post, it's no secret that I loved it. Yes, I saw it in 3-D. I had been under the impression that the intention had been to create it in that fashion. But to tell you the truth, both Bart and I didn't need the 3-D. Yeah, okay, it had been kinda cool. But the fact is it didn't enhance the experience. Nothing in it really seemed to require that it be "comin' at ya." When we next see it, we're going for 2-D. The last handful of movies I've seen in the 'third dimension' had this same shrug of "yeah, okay, whatever." Coraline is one exception. That film used the 3-D very naturally, with very few "LOOK! It's COMING TOWARD YOU! OooOOOOoo!" moments and the ones that did exist were seamlessly ingrained into the action at the time.

And giving 3-D to movies that hadn't already been intended as such? Like the upcoming Clash of the Titans. That went through a process as an afterthought. It hadn't been filmed with a 3-D nature in mind. But it's coming out that way anyway after being doctored in a computer. (Yes, I appreciate and marvel at the technological ability. And in some cases [such as the re-issue of The Nightmare Before Christmas and the upcoming Star Wars represented in "three dimensions"] can actually seem quite appealing.) But to do it all the time? I believe Alice had been 3-D'ized after the fact, too. We're already infested with remakes. Do we need to be flooded with "see it AGAIN in 3-D!" too?

In essence, they've sucked the joy (and reasoning) out of seeing something in 3D.

Here's a quote from William Friedkin, in response to whether or not The Exorcist will be repackaged in 3-D. (He said emphatically "NO" by the way.) He makes a very good point:

I don't like 3-D. I don't believe there is any film that I have seen and loved that would have been improved by a scintilla in 3-D. To me, it's just a gimmick. To me, the art of cinema is the same as the art of painting. The artist takes a 2-D medium and gives you the illusion of depth. If you look at any of the great paintings, you have the illusion of depth. Which is part of the art. The same with the great movies. I don't believe that Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, or any damn picture that you can name, would be better off in 3-D. I think it's a gimmick. And it reminds me of what happened when Cinemascope came in . When everybody predicted that every picture ever made was going to be in Cinemascope. Because it's not that way. It was meant to get people out of the house. I find 3-D distracting. I'm in the minority, I know.

And now they're talking about giving us 3-D TV at home?

NO THANKS.
It's just not fun anymore.

We Think It's Worth the Trip

While purchasing the Blu-Ray player I mentioned in the previous post, we were told to select a Blu-Ray disc which we could have included gratis. A much simpler task than it sounds. For Bart and I could not necessarily agree on any one movie. Or else the movies weren’t appealing to us. We could have gone with something we already owned – just to see it presented “that much” better. Not exactly the most tempting idea. We wanted something fresh to us. We eventually came to our choice: Journey to the Center of the Earth, the recent version with Brendan Fraser.

I know what you might be thinking…why? Well, we figured it would at least be eye candy. Especially in High Definition. For free. Even if the story and acting left everything to be desired, it would at least look damn cool. And – it’s in 3-D. Oh…did I mention that Bart as a crush on Brendan Fraser? (Can't say I don't agree with him.)

I’m a fan of the Jules Verne book, so I’d become curious as to how they handled it. Going into it (in fact many, many moons before the film’s theatrical release) I knew the premise. I certainly did not expect it to follow the book. Nor did I plan to scoff at the “additions.” I just wanted to have fun with it.

And you know what? I really did. I quite enjoyed it. Is it a great movie? No. But it’s well done and quite the ride. The acting is great. The effects are marvelous. The adventure walks the line between fantastic and plausible. (Okay, mostly fantastic…but hey, it’s a “summer action flick,” it’s supposed to stretch the truth.)

One of the more refreshing aspects is the character of Hannah Ásgeirsson played skillfully by Anita Briem. Refreshing in that she is not a complaining bimbo. However, she is not a bookish annoyance, either. She’s a delight. How wonderful to have a strong female character in a such a film. And yet, she didn’t overdo the “macho” either. Quite the wily feminine side as well. See for yourself – you will like Hannah the Mountain Guide.

As for the premise, quickly: Brendan Fraiser plays a professor who is saddled with his nephew. The professor continues his brother’s work, who disappeared looking into seismic activity. He left a copy of Journey to the Center of the Earth for his son (the nephew). Notes in the book reveal that book that it may not be fiction after all. The conditions for entering the Earth are about to occur. Naturally, they investigate. Adventure abounds.

I particularly liked when they came to the elaborate mine car track which prompted the lines, Is this in the book? – Sean, the nephew. No, I don’t think so. - Prof. Trevor Anderson. [It’s not ;) ] They had a sense of humor about their own over-fabrication. Nice to see.

Even by the time we reached the end, it had not made me roll my eyes. It remained entertaining. I recall Bart saying a third of the way through, “Ok, I’m not hating this…”

So, there you have it. Sure, it’s a little campy. But you would figure that going into, right? It’s just plain fun.

Sadly the 3-D glasses use the blue/red method rather than polarized, so a ghosting is involved. But WHOA! It matters little. 'Tis truly amazing to have otherwise crisp 3-D manifestations right there in the living room. Even single strands of hair popped out.

I just wish it had another title. For technically, it is not the book, so it "can't" be called as such. Alas, I cannot think of a better one. I mean, Our Journey to the Center of the Earth is stupid. Or New Journey. I don’t want to spend too much time thinking about it. My point is just that it's a charming play off the book while referencing it within the movie. That deserves a more descriptive and clever name. Any ideas?

A Used Bookstore Score

Last evening I browsed around a used bookstore that Bart and I frequent. It’s across the street from our favorite sushi restaurant. So I looked, waiting for Bart to arrive. One of the books in the back of my mind that I knew I should probably read happened to be there. I’m quite excited. Coraline by Neil Gaiman. I’d heard of it before, especially since there is a movie in the works. Having seen featurettes on the film, I knew it to be right up my alley. In the most basic terms, it’s about a little girl named Coraline who finds a mysterious door in the house they moved into which leads to a fantastic adventure of some kind. I’m not quite sure what yet…I’ve only just begun. It’s supposed to be scary, too, which could be fun. The movie stars the amazing Dakota Fanning. Also exciting is how the movie is being made. It’s following the lead of James and the Giant Peach. A live-action film until the “other world” begins, which is then stop-motion animation with delightfully odd figurines. Plus, it will be in 3-D. I’m a little on the fence about the 3-D stuff. It’s cool, but I’m not overly into it.

I’m about to start the fourth chapter. As I’ve said before, I usually read in transit. So when I finish, I will give a report. Then, when the movie comes out I can make a comparison. As always, I hope for the rare good adaptation.
Here's the trailer. I have not seen it in a long time. Months, in fact. So I don't recall all that much. I'm not going to watch it again, so as to let the book speak for itself. But you can watch.



Coraline Sewn Up with Slightly Irregular Stitching