Toms View of the World

Oh dear.

Oh dear.

(note, this review may contain spoilers)

Mainstream 3D films really need to get past the “playing with 3D” gimmicks before they’ll be taken seriously.  Beowolf 3D was good - because it used the 3D to add depth - it was like “looking through a window”, rather than having characters in the film throw/push/hold things into the forground all the time, which is precisely how Journey to the Centre of the Earth 3D spends it’s time.

Once you’ve survived 20 minutes of balls, sticks, and tape measures being waved into the foreground space - the film picks up, but only by lifting a series of set pieces from other blockbuster movies of the past - and it’s just soooo predicatable as a result.

Underground - check.

Mine car “rollercoaster” from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.  Check.

Swams of insects/birds/bats/fish flying through the screen (as seen in pretty much every themepark 3D film). Check.

Floating Rock Stepping Stones (from pretty much every Super Mario Bros. game)

Implausable creatures underground.  Check.

Inifinite Fall sequence where the characters stop screaming, have a conversation, then start screaming again.  Check.

Well, as a technical demonstration for live action 3D movies, it’s passable, but as an action adventure movie, it’s not a patch on either National Treasure 2, or Indy Jones 4.

Last night, I went to see the new movie version of “Mamma Mia!” - now, I know it’s not my normal fare of action/sci-fi/thriller type movie - but having seen the stage version earlier this year in Bristol, I wanted to see how well it had translated to film.

You can tell a lot about how the audience found a film by watching as they leave the auditorium - most of the time, people have a fairly neutral expression, of if a film was really good a smile.  Mamma Mia - people were walking out humming and singing “Waterloo” (which is the song they use over the closing credits).  Note to everyone, do not leave the theatre until after Waterloo - the visuals on screen are laugh-out-loud funny.

Generally the film has taken the stage show pretty faithfully, added some spectacular locations, some “jumps” between scenes which weren’t possible on stage, and a ton of energy. This is a cast who are clearly enjoying themselves (although Pierce Brosnan’s singing voice is nothing to write home about).  There’s lots of little touches which came from the stage show - including the “Flipper Dance” making a brief appearance.

I’m not going to go into the plot here - firstly, so I won’t spoil it, but moreso because it’s mostly irrelevant, being simply there to hang a series of Abba hits around.

Despite going on my own - I enjoyed it - I suspect because it was a full screening and the audience were having a lot of fun - unlike most films where anyone who says anything is likely to be “sushed” - in this one half the audience were singing along, and nobody minded!

Today I had my first encounter with Digital Cinema.

I ventured down to my local multiplex to see “The Bourne Ultimatum” - expecting to see a regular 35mm print, projected in the traditional way (which for my local multiplex means slightly out of focus and with a fair amount of dirt on the film) - as the advert and trailer reel passed by (still projected from the normal 35mm print - the cinemas own “ident” clips being very worn out) the first indication that something new was happening was at the start of the main feature.

Here in the UK, as most of my readers will know, a static card is displayed prior to the film, detailing it’s “rating”. As soon as this appeared, it was clear something had changed. It looked “better” than normal. The edges of the text were razor-sharp, and the whites were much “whiter” (if that makes sense).

This sharp, clear, crisp picture quality carried on right through the film - the picture was so much better than my recent experiences of 35mm projection, plus the big advantage of the system - no dirt on the print - even after being shown many times, this digital print will look as good as it did the first time.

This is clearly the future of cinema - and it needs to be if it is to compete with Hi-Definition formats in the home. Now if only they could find a way to not charge £3 for a coke (cinema managers note this - selling lots of things at a small profit is generally better than driving your customers to the supermarket on the other side of the retail park), cinema might be due a resurgence.

A survey has been conducted recently to get people to vote for the worst movie ever - and the winners are a bit debateable:

1. Spice World The Movie
2. Titanic
3. Grease 2
4. Waterworld
5. Hostel
6. Anaconda
7. Batman & Robin
8. Gigli
9. Catwoman
10. Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot

I think the most notable ommision is the truely horrific Borat. Other notable contenders include Final Destination 3 (simply for the fact that the entire plot of the film is based on a continuity error in the opening sequence - let alone the technical inaccuracies in said sequence) and a swathe of copycat, CGI kids animated movies about animals escaping from the zoo/farm/woodland and ending up in Madagascar, The Wild, or Over The Hedge.

What’s the worst movie you’ve ever seen?

(from the Register)

Well, after the last incarnation of Bond, with it's invisible cars and gadgets, gadges, gadgets galore, the latest incarnation of the bond franchise is much much much (much?) better.

The gadgets are few and far between, the technology much more believable (even if the film is quite clearly sponsored by Sony… they've been very careful to make sure you can see the Sony or SonyEricsson logo on most of the technology that's showcased in the film)

However, put that aside, and you have a much more character driven action movie, with twists and turns galore (and that's not just Bond in his Aston) - they've done away with the gimmicks, and a lot of the innuendo, to leave a much more modern, gritty action movie - yes, the set pieces are very well done, yes, there's some amazing chases sequences (including one fairly early on set on a building site) and yes, it's definitely Bond, but it's a Bond for the new millennium.  Daniel Craig very much does the character justice with a solid performance.

A simply fantastic action movie. 

Dave dug out this little gem - yes, it's an advert for chocolate, but it's also a very fun little game…

Simply look at the picture and find the 50 films - some are much harder than others (it took me 93 minutes, and that was with Dave feeding me clues over IM for some of the harder ones!)

James, I think this one might be right up your street - the challenge is laid down! 

It’s very rare me to walk out of a movie.

However the utterly dreadful “Borat” earns that dubious honour. I’ll admit, I probably don’t get the joke, as everyone else in the cinema seemed to be howling with laughter as two (already established) homophobic male characters wrestled naked on a hotel bed (whilst smashing the room up in the process) - but I just don’t find it funny. Nor did I find the incredible levels of racism acceptable (yes, I understand it’s a joke) nor the scatological humour, or the polite American hostess explaining to Borat how to use a toilet.

It’s an 84 minute film that’s 83 minutes too long (timings taken from the IMDB, I walked out at around the 40 minute mark). The character and jokes may work as a 30 second TV sketch, but not a near 90 minute movie.

Utterly dreadful.