3D has come a long way since those cereal box glasses from my youth in the 80's. My trip to Disney World this summer allowed my kids and I to see some 3D attractions in their parks, using glasses that provided a pretty decent 3D effect-but still were just heavier plastic versions of the traditional bicolor film glasses. Enter XPand 3D-the purveyor of Theater 3D experience. The glasses, paired with a 13,000 projector that can take 5 minutes to restart when the dual projection doesn't start up correctly, and little transmitters that feed off of the projector and send light cues to the LCDs is the system used to show this movie.
This is a digital 3D system that sends image swaps and light changes individually to each eye-a similar system as used for Hannah Montana. The glasses are a bit cumbersome, heavy, and not very comfortable for something that you have to wear for 90 minutes, and it is somewhat difficult to find the perfect focal point, so there are images in the frame that still seem off-creating some eye fatigue.
My wife is an asst. manager at the theater we watched this in says that EXpand is working on the glasses system and how they sync with the software as these are still the prototype glasses. This theater also just installed the entire system 3 days ago, so there are probably some tweaks that need to be done. I found it tiring, and had a mild headache at the end. It provides a neat 3D effect, and there are some 'AT YOU's provided in the movie that really take advantage of the capabilities. The glowing humming birds and the sneezing dinosaur were hits with my kids.
Upcoming titles to be released in XPand 3D include 'Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,' 'Toy Story 3' and 'Avatar,' James Cameron's first feature since 'Titanic.' DreamWorks Animation also recently announced that all their new films, including 'Shrek Goes Fourth,' will be released in 3D. WIth such heavy hitters coming, im sure XPand will work the bugs out. On to the movie.
Trevor (Brendan Fraser) is a volcanologist and a professor in a university. He has completely forgotten about Sean coming to spend ten days with him. When Sean’s mother drops him off, Trevor is totally unprepared and his house is in a complete mess. Sean is a 13-year-old teenager who’s into PSP, Google and the likes, so Trevor and Sean don’t seem to get along in the beginning.
Before Sean’s mom leaves, she passes Trevor with a box of items that belonged to Max, Trevor’s brother and Sean’s father, who went missing years before. Suddenly, Sean takes interest in what Trevor has to say after he tells him about his father, whom he never really had a chance to know. Trevor tells Sean that yoyo is his father’s PSP. Trevor also finds a novel Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne with notes written by Max. Trevor and Sean quickly go to his laboratory only to discover a new seismometer reading which has led them to Iceland. Although Trevor intends to send Sean back to his mother, Sean relents and Trevor has no choice but to bring him along.
In Iceland, Trevor and Sean look for another volcanologist only to find he has passed away 3 years ago. His daughter, Hannah (Anita Briem) invites them into the house and they talk about the book by Jules Verne. Hannah refers the believer of the book as "Vernian", in which she says unlike her father, she is not a Vernian. However, she offers to be Trevor and Sean’s mountain guide for a hefty price. While hiking, Trevor refuses to heed Hannah’s warning of possible lightning strike as he is trying to pull out his seismometer. When it’s nearly too late, Trevor lets go of his instrument and they are trapped in a cave after the lightning hits the rocks and the rocks cover the entrance of the cave.
Trevor and Hannah decides to find another way out while Sean insists on digging the rocks. While finding the way out, Trevor, Sean and Hannah fall into a deep pit which takes them to the center of the Earth. What happen next includes discovering of glowing birds, gigantic man-eating plants, man-eating fish, Loch Ness monsters and T-Rex.
Basically, the movie is purposely made in 3D and it is the best to watch in a 3D theaters, otherwise, the movie would seem to be rather dull and predictable.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wall-E! Great Movi-eee! (Great Review, not mine)
Wall-E is both entertaining and subversive at the same time. A truly enjoyable film that can be enjoyed by all, yet has a very subtle message for the masses. The message I am referring to is not the obvious one about the environment, but rather about apathy, and what can happen to an apathetic society. Though not a perfect film, it is pretty damn close, and easily the best film Pixar has ever made.
Director Andrew Stanton should be given high praise for crafting this groundbreaking new film that is filled with soul. “Wall-E” is the story of a waste management robot left behind on an Earth that was abandoned nearly 700 years earlier. The name Wall-E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class. There is a lot of waste for Wall-E to lift. The Earth as been polluted to the point that it is inhabitable for most sentient life, except of course for the cockroach. Over the course of the 700 years since humans first left the earth and took to the stars, all of the Wall-E units, but one, have since stopped operating. The Wall-E of the story has sort of evolved over the years. He has learned to salvage valuables such as rubicks cubes and light bulbs that might be of use later. He has also built up a supply of repair parts that he uses to repair himself and stay in operation. Wall-E has also taken to watching a video tape of the musical “Hello Dolly” over and over again. It is through that movie that Wall-E begins to take on human traits, such as compassion, the ability to love, and a desire to be loved. But except for his cockroach friend, there is nobody for him to fall in love with.
This changes when a space ship returns to Earth, and deposits a lone robot, EVE. EVE stands for Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, and she has been sent to Earth to look for plant life. Unable to find any plant life, she becomes increasingly frustrated. When Wall-E sees her, he falls instantly in love. But EVE sees him as more of a nuisance, and even tries to blast him to bits a few times. But eventually, when a dust storm hits, Wall-E comes to her rescue and brings her back to his shelter, where he shows her the movie, as well as a number of items he has been hording. But when Wall-E presents her with a plant he has been caring for, EVE’s directive takes over, she scoops the plant up, shoves it inside her, and calls her spaceship to pick her up.
Unable to let the love of his life go, Wall-E stows away on the spaceship carrying EVE away. The ship eventually docks with a larger ship that is run by robots, whose purpose is to serve as a resort for human beings until the time that life is found on Earth and they can return home. On one level, the film is trying to make a statement about the environment and how we need to take care of our planet before it’s too late. But on a far more subtle level, the movie makes a point that the human race as a whole has become apathetic, and if left unchecked, that apathy will ultimately spell doom for our species. Wall-E arrives to the resort ship to find a human race that has become so obese that they can no longer walk upright. They are carted around in hovering chairs, plugged into virtual reality systems that keep them occupied, and they drink high calorie meals like “cupcake in a cup.” Humans only interact with one another via internet connections, and never look up from their computer screens to even notice that the ship has a swimming pool. The ship’s captain can’t even read because he has never seen or opened a book. Pixar’s analogy is that if we allow ourselves to become so detached from the world around us, the world will fall apart right in front of us, but we won’t even notice because we are too blind to everything but our own selfish desires. It is really a very subversive message to put in an animated film targeted to children. But then again, Pixar’s films have always been smarter than the rest, and aimed to parents as much as they are aimed for kids.
The animation in “Wall-E” is beautiful. The story is both simple and complex at the same time. For a screenplay with little dialogue, it is a brilliant story. At it’s heart is the love story of Wall-E and EVE. Their story is as touching and memorable as any live action romance in recent memory. When EVE powers down awaiting the return of her ship, you can’t help but feel the pain and anguish that Wall-E is feeling trying to figure out what is wrong with his beloved. This is not to say that the film is not without faults. At times the story falls into an all to familiar, predictable pattern. At times the film seems to slow down too much, and could have used just a bit of editing. But overall, this is as flawless an animated film as one could ask for. Watching it, I could not help but feel that Disney / Pixar might just have the second animated film in history to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. The movie is really that good.
Director Andrew Stanton should be given high praise for crafting this groundbreaking new film that is filled with soul. “Wall-E” is the story of a waste management robot left behind on an Earth that was abandoned nearly 700 years earlier. The name Wall-E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class. There is a lot of waste for Wall-E to lift. The Earth as been polluted to the point that it is inhabitable for most sentient life, except of course for the cockroach. Over the course of the 700 years since humans first left the earth and took to the stars, all of the Wall-E units, but one, have since stopped operating. The Wall-E of the story has sort of evolved over the years. He has learned to salvage valuables such as rubicks cubes and light bulbs that might be of use later. He has also built up a supply of repair parts that he uses to repair himself and stay in operation. Wall-E has also taken to watching a video tape of the musical “Hello Dolly” over and over again. It is through that movie that Wall-E begins to take on human traits, such as compassion, the ability to love, and a desire to be loved. But except for his cockroach friend, there is nobody for him to fall in love with.
This changes when a space ship returns to Earth, and deposits a lone robot, EVE. EVE stands for Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, and she has been sent to Earth to look for plant life. Unable to find any plant life, she becomes increasingly frustrated. When Wall-E sees her, he falls instantly in love. But EVE sees him as more of a nuisance, and even tries to blast him to bits a few times. But eventually, when a dust storm hits, Wall-E comes to her rescue and brings her back to his shelter, where he shows her the movie, as well as a number of items he has been hording. But when Wall-E presents her with a plant he has been caring for, EVE’s directive takes over, she scoops the plant up, shoves it inside her, and calls her spaceship to pick her up.
Unable to let the love of his life go, Wall-E stows away on the spaceship carrying EVE away. The ship eventually docks with a larger ship that is run by robots, whose purpose is to serve as a resort for human beings until the time that life is found on Earth and they can return home. On one level, the film is trying to make a statement about the environment and how we need to take care of our planet before it’s too late. But on a far more subtle level, the movie makes a point that the human race as a whole has become apathetic, and if left unchecked, that apathy will ultimately spell doom for our species. Wall-E arrives to the resort ship to find a human race that has become so obese that they can no longer walk upright. They are carted around in hovering chairs, plugged into virtual reality systems that keep them occupied, and they drink high calorie meals like “cupcake in a cup.” Humans only interact with one another via internet connections, and never look up from their computer screens to even notice that the ship has a swimming pool. The ship’s captain can’t even read because he has never seen or opened a book. Pixar’s analogy is that if we allow ourselves to become so detached from the world around us, the world will fall apart right in front of us, but we won’t even notice because we are too blind to everything but our own selfish desires. It is really a very subversive message to put in an animated film targeted to children. But then again, Pixar’s films have always been smarter than the rest, and aimed to parents as much as they are aimed for kids.
The animation in “Wall-E” is beautiful. The story is both simple and complex at the same time. For a screenplay with little dialogue, it is a brilliant story. At it’s heart is the love story of Wall-E and EVE. Their story is as touching and memorable as any live action romance in recent memory. When EVE powers down awaiting the return of her ship, you can’t help but feel the pain and anguish that Wall-E is feeling trying to figure out what is wrong with his beloved. This is not to say that the film is not without faults. At times the story falls into an all to familiar, predictable pattern. At times the film seems to slow down too much, and could have used just a bit of editing. But overall, this is as flawless an animated film as one could ask for. Watching it, I could not help but feel that Disney / Pixar might just have the second animated film in history to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. The movie is really that good.
Hancock! (great review, not mine)
Will Smith is one of those actors that has come to grow on me over the years, the main turning point being his amazing performance in Ali a few years back. Since then, I haven’t exactly loved all his movies, but if you’re going to try to be objective about it, Smith always brought exactly what his roles called for. The other factor is that all his movies seem to make crazy amounts of bank regardless of their quality, which makes him one of the last (if not THE last) truly bankable movie stars.
The film originally titled “Tonight He Comes” (for the record I much prefer the name “Hancock”) sounds like a straight comedy when you hear the premise… you’d even be forgiven for still thinking it’s a straight comedy when seeing the first wave of trailers and clips which pretty much painted Hancock as a laugher. Then came word that the film is actually a dark film. So which was true? Well… both actually.
THE GENERAL IDEA
The synopsis for Hancock looks something like this: “John Hancock (Will Smith) is an unhappy and reluctant superhero who is living in his own world. For some unknown reason, Hancock is depressed and has started drinking very heavily. He has saved many lives in Los Angles over the years, but in doing so, he has no regards for damaging buildings, trains, roads, cars, or anything that gets in his way to get the job done. The last time he captured several criminals, it cost the city $9 million to fix the damages. The public has had enough of Hancock, and they want him to stop or go to another city. Then one day, Hancock saves the life of Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman). Ray is a Public Relations executive who now can go home to his wife and child, because Hancock was there. Ray owes Hancock his life, and he makes it his mission to change his superhero’s image and have the public cheering him.”
THE GOOD
Hancock is not your stereotypical superhero film. As a matter of fact, you could make the argument that the movie is more of a character study surrounding Hancock and his predicament. A man without memory of who he actually is with serious issues he needs to deal with. Yeah it sounds a bit cheesy, but you know what… it works. I really enjoyed how they executed this whole premise.
Will Smith once again brings exactly the performance that his particular character needed… and believe me… getting told “you’re playing a man with superpowers who drinks too much, has major attitude and personal problems who is forced to confront them in a movie that isn’t a spoof but isn’t too serious either” would be a description that could cause a lot of actors to drink, but honestly… Smith found the zone where Hancock lives and portrayed it perfectly.
Although this is not a comedy movie… there are honestly good laughs sprinkled throughout the length of the movie… the best ones weren’t even given away in the trailers.
Has Jason Bateman ever done a bad job?
THE BAD
To me, the single biggest weakness in Hancock is the absolute lack of any adversary other than himself. Yes, I understand that Hancock is more of a character movie than a superhero one, and as such the antagonist is Hancock’s personal issues… but whether it likes it or not, Hancock IS still at least in part a superhero movie, and that being the case you need at least some semblance of an adversary. No, it doesn’t need to be a “super villain”… but all the movie gives is is random smatterings of various thugs and hoods. A couple of which get together later (after each getting their asses handed to them by the super powered Hancock) and decide to go after Hancock. This made ZERO sense to me since they already know Hancock is invulnerable and bulletproof… yet they decide to go after him with some guns… I’m sorry but even stupid criminals are smarter than that.
****I could go on a limb here and suggest that the main bad guy MIGHT have an inkling, or suspicion about Hancock's weakness here, but the situation that allows him to exploit it is completely coincidental. If you know anything about Psychology and the study of archetype and hero myth it's thinly plausible that this guy could have picked up on it, but it's a real stretch****
The second half of the film takes a downward turn in terms of momentum once a minor twist is revealed that (even after an explanation is offered) seemed a bit weak and coincidental which then dominates the remainder of the story. Now, unlike a lot of movie critics out there… the second half of the film didn’t bother too much, but it is clearly the weaker part of the movie no doubt.
Since Hancock doesn’t really have an adversary in the film that can fight him… the action is boring. I know what you’re thinking: “But John, you said this was a character study more than an action film” and that’s true… BUT… they have a lot of action scenes without any action. You can only get a kick out of seeing Smith beat up non-superpowered guys with one hand behind his back so many times. If you’re going to have action sequences… then put in some… you know… action.
OVERALL
Hancock is getting worked over pretty good by the critics right now (last time I checked it only had a 35% on Rotten Tomatoes) but I’ve got to tell ya… while I didn’t “love” Hancock, I’m really not sure what their beef with the flick is. For me, it delivers on what it suggests it will, the story was a good one, some decent laughs and a strong lead performance by Smith make this a watchable film despite the shortcomings I mentioned above.I thought it was pretty good, all things considered (it being a summer movie, only 90ish minutes long, etc). They could have tossed off the examination of their relationship right after it was revealed that they had been together, but they went on the look a little at some of the mythic undertones of a 'hero'. The bit where the writers made it evident that the gods have a sense of purpose (or a sense of humor, of sorts) and the sacrifice that must be made should two of them ever get together added some depth to what could have been a typical summer movie where the guy/girl doesn't get what they want.
If superheroes existed in the world like they do in comics/'toons like Justice League and Xmen, where groups of them can band together and have soap operas, there is nothing at all stopping them from just saying screw humans and taking over. This was touched on in Superman II. This movie adds to it by making it almost an insurance policy that the hero/heorine can be together, and even have some of their powers for a little while, but then have to sacrifice them to remain together. They have a choice-they aren't forced by fate, but is the cost worth it? I really liked this bit-my son thought it was pretty neat to, after thinking about it for a little while, and at 8 years of age I can't argue with a movie that coaxes that thought out of him.
The film originally titled “Tonight He Comes” (for the record I much prefer the name “Hancock”) sounds like a straight comedy when you hear the premise… you’d even be forgiven for still thinking it’s a straight comedy when seeing the first wave of trailers and clips which pretty much painted Hancock as a laugher. Then came word that the film is actually a dark film. So which was true? Well… both actually.
THE GENERAL IDEA
The synopsis for Hancock looks something like this: “John Hancock (Will Smith) is an unhappy and reluctant superhero who is living in his own world. For some unknown reason, Hancock is depressed and has started drinking very heavily. He has saved many lives in Los Angles over the years, but in doing so, he has no regards for damaging buildings, trains, roads, cars, or anything that gets in his way to get the job done. The last time he captured several criminals, it cost the city $9 million to fix the damages. The public has had enough of Hancock, and they want him to stop or go to another city. Then one day, Hancock saves the life of Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman). Ray is a Public Relations executive who now can go home to his wife and child, because Hancock was there. Ray owes Hancock his life, and he makes it his mission to change his superhero’s image and have the public cheering him.”
THE GOOD
Hancock is not your stereotypical superhero film. As a matter of fact, you could make the argument that the movie is more of a character study surrounding Hancock and his predicament. A man without memory of who he actually is with serious issues he needs to deal with. Yeah it sounds a bit cheesy, but you know what… it works. I really enjoyed how they executed this whole premise.
Will Smith once again brings exactly the performance that his particular character needed… and believe me… getting told “you’re playing a man with superpowers who drinks too much, has major attitude and personal problems who is forced to confront them in a movie that isn’t a spoof but isn’t too serious either” would be a description that could cause a lot of actors to drink, but honestly… Smith found the zone where Hancock lives and portrayed it perfectly.
Although this is not a comedy movie… there are honestly good laughs sprinkled throughout the length of the movie… the best ones weren’t even given away in the trailers.
Has Jason Bateman ever done a bad job?
THE BAD
To me, the single biggest weakness in Hancock is the absolute lack of any adversary other than himself. Yes, I understand that Hancock is more of a character movie than a superhero one, and as such the antagonist is Hancock’s personal issues… but whether it likes it or not, Hancock IS still at least in part a superhero movie, and that being the case you need at least some semblance of an adversary. No, it doesn’t need to be a “super villain”… but all the movie gives is is random smatterings of various thugs and hoods. A couple of which get together later (after each getting their asses handed to them by the super powered Hancock) and decide to go after Hancock. This made ZERO sense to me since they already know Hancock is invulnerable and bulletproof… yet they decide to go after him with some guns… I’m sorry but even stupid criminals are smarter than that.
****I could go on a limb here and suggest that the main bad guy MIGHT have an inkling, or suspicion about Hancock's weakness here, but the situation that allows him to exploit it is completely coincidental. If you know anything about Psychology and the study of archetype and hero myth it's thinly plausible that this guy could have picked up on it, but it's a real stretch****
The second half of the film takes a downward turn in terms of momentum once a minor twist is revealed that (even after an explanation is offered) seemed a bit weak and coincidental which then dominates the remainder of the story. Now, unlike a lot of movie critics out there… the second half of the film didn’t bother too much, but it is clearly the weaker part of the movie no doubt.
Since Hancock doesn’t really have an adversary in the film that can fight him… the action is boring. I know what you’re thinking: “But John, you said this was a character study more than an action film” and that’s true… BUT… they have a lot of action scenes without any action. You can only get a kick out of seeing Smith beat up non-superpowered guys with one hand behind his back so many times. If you’re going to have action sequences… then put in some… you know… action.
OVERALL
Hancock is getting worked over pretty good by the critics right now (last time I checked it only had a 35% on Rotten Tomatoes) but I’ve got to tell ya… while I didn’t “love” Hancock, I’m really not sure what their beef with the flick is. For me, it delivers on what it suggests it will, the story was a good one, some decent laughs and a strong lead performance by Smith make this a watchable film despite the shortcomings I mentioned above.I thought it was pretty good, all things considered (it being a summer movie, only 90ish minutes long, etc). They could have tossed off the examination of their relationship right after it was revealed that they had been together, but they went on the look a little at some of the mythic undertones of a 'hero'. The bit where the writers made it evident that the gods have a sense of purpose (or a sense of humor, of sorts) and the sacrifice that must be made should two of them ever get together added some depth to what could have been a typical summer movie where the guy/girl doesn't get what they want.
If superheroes existed in the world like they do in comics/'toons like Justice League and Xmen, where groups of them can band together and have soap operas, there is nothing at all stopping them from just saying screw humans and taking over. This was touched on in Superman II. This movie adds to it by making it almost an insurance policy that the hero/heorine can be together, and even have some of their powers for a little while, but then have to sacrifice them to remain together. They have a choice-they aren't forced by fate, but is the cost worth it? I really liked this bit-my son thought it was pretty neat to, after thinking about it for a little while, and at 8 years of age I can't argue with a movie that coaxes that thought out of him.
Monday, July 14, 2008
My current fitness attempt
Ive started biking to work, well, at least part way. This is the route I take, a little over 4.5 miles. KIM that you burn fewer calories on a bike, so in reality I probably went through about 400 or so, not the 1000 up above *damnit damnit damnit*
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
