3-D Report: November

Sorry this is late. Computer troubles and troubles with this site have been very trying recently.

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. 

Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas

When you absolutely loath something, it’s difficult to see the good in it. So take this with a grain of salt.

Harold and Kumar 3 is not very good 3D. The depth perception is all wrong. It looks nothing like what real life does. Hard to explain, but if you see it, you will be annoyed.

Or maybe not. Its not the worst I’ve ever seen, and—as I said—my hatred for the film is probably affecting it. Still, I am frustrated by how the film is treating 3D as a gimmick. It uses it as a joke, and the effect is that 3D is only a gimmick for bad movies. When people like Martin Scorcese and James Cameron are working so hard for it to be a genuine art-form, it is annoying that a movie uses it in such an irreverent and poorly-made fashion.

Don’t judge 3D by this movie.*

*Please note this only applies if you have already seen the movie. If you haven’t, under no conditions watch it. Ever.

Immortals

For all his obnoxious comments about how they “make this kind of movie all the time in India,” he does genuinely create unique and stunning visuals. In his first 3D picture, he uses the format to great effect.

There are no problems with focus or color. Whatever errors occur in depth don’t matter to much because everything is so surreal. And cool. With the dark imagery contrasted by bright red and gold, the bizarre costumes, and some of the weirdest settings ever, it’s riveting. The 3D adds just the extra touch of grandeur to keep you fixed on every scene.

The only problem is that, like every single fantasy for adults, every image has been digitally darkened. The 2D image looks the exact same as the 3D does when glasses are worn, but many people will see it as yet another example of 3D darkening the original image. Don’t be one of those people.

Happy Feet Two

Ever seen an old movie from the mid-30s and laughed at how obvious it was that the characters were on a stage with a giant painting behind them? It was because the cinematography and focus were so much better they showed far more detail than filmmakers were used to, and now the old backdrops looked dumb.

Happy Feet Two in 3D looks like that. It is pretty funny, since while the penguins are people in motion-capture suits, the backgrounds are almost entirely computer generated images. The 3D is great for about 300 feet in the (fake) setting, but then it suddenly loses most of its three-dimensionality. The effect

is that these penguins live on a little ice sheet surrounded by elaborately painted walls.

Other than that, the 3D is pretty good. There are no focus or color errors, and the depth is great in the close-up shots. And having no 3D background certainly beats The Smurf’s superfocus, where everything is so vivid and clear and 3D you have no clue what to look at.

Arthur Christmas

This 3D isn’t quite the 3D on Kung Fu Panda and Cars 2 that leaves you flabbergasted by its beauty, but it is pretty great. Since everything is created on a computer, we have no error with color, depth, or focus. There are few moments where we really see they have 3D for a reason—nothing flying out at you, and no shots with an endless horizon. However, it does give an added touch that will get you more involved in the story. If you like 3D, you will like this. If you are a little less pleased with it, you can skip it.

Hugo

I think I’ll just quote what I said in my review:

“Richard Richardson (Wall Street, both Kill Bills, The Aviator, Inglorious Basterds…) is cinematographer, and along with Scorcese does a great job. This is probably the most beautiful to look at live action film of the year. Just as importantly, Scorcese makes near-perfectly layered, near-perfectly focused 3D (the film was mostly shot in the format). At a time when most older and drama-orientated filmmakers are denying the benefits of the format, Scorcese is proving that this technique definitely has a lot to offer (and the high 3D percentage of the film’s gross shows people have notice).”

Yeah. It is amazing 3D. Incredible. A great movie too.

Well, that’s all. See you at the movies.

The Descendants (A+)

The Descendants is a great film. Not a perfect one, but a great one.
The story (based on a book and written/directed by About Schmidt and Sideways’ Alexander Payne) has two main plotlines, ones which do eventually converge. The first is the protagonist (a middle-aged, financially-successful lawyer)’s attempts to come to terms with the inevitable death of his comatose wife and his new role as a single parent. The second is of that same man’s struggle with selling 250,000 acres of Hawaiian land his family inherited. (He is in charge of a trust, and the state says individuals can’t own all that land; besides which, some of his cousins are in financial difficulty and need the cash). I will start by discussing the problems of this move. These would be the characters. I won’t say they are two-dimensional—we actually see much depth and emotions of each—but I would say they are bland. Matt, the protagonist, is a nice guy who hasn’t been spending enough time with his family. We see his heartache, his past, his mistakes, his thinking—it’s just there is nothing unique there. He isn’t stupid, he isn’t created simplistically: He just is created to be as relatable as possible, and has lost any real flaws or personality. George Clooney was probably not the best choice to play him, either. The thinking was undoubtedly to cast a guy who plays slick, successful men and place him—as his usual character—in a situation where he must realize this persona is merely a persona. It doesn’t work: Clooney is too handsome, too likeable, and too charismatic to be relatable. Matt is just like all his other characters—Danny Ocean, for example—interesting and in-depth, but more someone we want to be than someone we are.
The Secret Life of an American Teenager’s Shailene Woodley plays the older of his daughters, and while less blame falls on her acting, the character still comes off as uninteresting. We see motivation, emotion, and personality; it’s just that there is nothing unique about it. She is an angry teenager, she is into sex and drugs because of course she is. She wears very revealing swimsuits because the audience needs to know she is a contrast to the conservative Matt. She nurtures her sister, she gets into bad relationships, she secretly cares about her dad… We get a lot about her, but none of it surprises us.
Her boyfriend is a stoner/slacker. We see he has some hidden charm, but we don’t really see someone who we say “oh, that’s just like so-and-so.” Matt’s other daughter is a rebellious pre-teen—she is desperate to go through puberty, she likes using her middle finger. She is exactly the sort of character who we can connect any girl to, but she isn’t one who we can distinguish.
So, why did I love the film? Actually, I didn’t love it. It was a bit depressing while at the same time a little too hopeful; and I really couldn’t connect with any of the characters. But I see it is dealing with something great. Every interaction sparks with depth, every scene builds suspense, you want to laugh and cry at the same time during every minute of it.
I have not yet had to deal with the loss of a family member. I am not fifty-years-old. I have never had a fight with my wife. In fact, I’ve never had a wife. Hopefully these things will happen. When they do, I think I’ll appreciate the movie more. I don’t think I’ll ever find Matt or his daughters unique or relatable characters, but I think I will be touched by the themes more.
This film spends two hours carefully crafting something epic. It isn’t as much a story as a piece of a life. There is definitely a climax—the characters do change. But it is more just a look at what people have to do, because that is what life is like.
And in a way, it is strangely comforting.

Hugo (A)

Martin Scorcese’s violent, gritty dramas are consistent critical hits. I don’t think anyone would mind if he kept making them, and I don’t think anyone would blame him for it. This is a guy who has found what he is good at, proven it to everyone else, and has the means to ensure he continue at it.
However, Scorcese surprises everyone by moving far outside of his comfort zone with a 3D, visually-oriented family film. This embrace of new ideas and new technologies sets an example for why attempting to innovate new technologies and not stick to the status quo would be reason enough to like Hugo, but better still is that mixed with the visually stunning images is a compelling story. Scorcese and screenwriter John Logan have made an excellent film that most everyone can enjoy.
Brian Selznick’s novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret is adapted into a screenplay by John Logan, a writer of The Last Samurai and The Aviator. The center of the story is to inspire an appreciation of cinema and encourage the preserving of old films, but it also has some important things to say about dealing with the past and how it relates to the future. Obviously, analyzing it in great detail would give away the plot, but I can assure you it is very well done.
The movie is about an orphan boy (named Herbert or something) who lives in a Parisian railway station operating the clocks after his father (Jude Law) dies in a fire. One of the few things he has left is an animatron (aka mechanical doll) that is meant to write or draw something. Problem is it is in poor repair, and even if Hugo can fix it he still misses the key to get it to start. When an elderly man (Ben Kingsley) who runs a toy shop in the station catches him stealing the parts needed to rebuild the robot, he takes the boy’s book containing all of the designs for the animatron. The man’s adopted daughter (Chloe Grace Mortez) agrees to help him get it back, and the two begin to discover the man has a dark secret.
Asa Butterfield proves to be a rising star worth watching in the title role, and the supporting cast is great as well. Special note should go to the always charming Emily Mortimer as the owner of a flower shop and Sacha Baren Cohen as the station inspector determined to send the protagonist to an orphanage. If you are thinking that perhaps an orphanage is a safer place for a pre-teen boy than a train station that is a very good question, but the film resolves this dilemma in a satisfactory, if not perfect, manner.
Richard Richardson (Wall Street, both Kill Bills, The Aviator, Inglorious Basterds…) is cinematographer, and along with Scorcese does a great job. This is probably the most beautiful to look at live action film of the year. Just as importantly, Scorcese makes near-perfectly layered, near-perfectly focused 3D (the film was mostly shot in the format). At a time when most older and drama-orientated filmmakers are denying the benefits of the format, Scorcese is proving that this technique definitely has a lot to offer (and the high 3D percentage of the film’s gross shows people have notice).
A fear many parents have is that their children will not enjoy it. This is understandable, but most kids will find the compelling story quite entertaining. Not as much so as, say, Arthur Christmas, but enough to justify taking them to it. And adults will enjoy this much more.
Hugo is a gorgeous and touching adventure, and one definitely worth checking out.