Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
BTW, the 3-D in Alice in Wonderland is lame. I found out today the movie was filmed in 2-D and converted to 3-D, and it looks it. Everything has that flat, cut-out, old multi-plane camera look. And the handful of 3-D "tricks" they did were straight out of 1950's 3-D movie schtick. Embarassing.
So, if you're gonna see it, see the 2-D version.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashbear
...and we loved Alice - especially the 3D. They didn't resort to the usual cheap tricks and any "protrusions" out of the fourth wall were justified. It made it a lot easier to get immersed in the ambiance and settings. We'd recommend it to anyone. We wouldn't recommend it to small children as a lot of characters seem to have a penchant for poking others in the eye with things.
|
I am more with Bear on this one. I didn't love it - just liked, but it was entertaining.
After talking with several people this weekend about Alive, the responses seem to be divided thusly: people who pay more attention to the fine details of the story; how it does (or doesn't) follow the original story; how well the story and plot line were developed; etc., then those people didn't like it. For those of who enjoy an entertaining movie, can be amused by good visuals and a story that isn't full of ugly holes, we liked it.
This is NOT meant as a slam against those who like the details I mention in the first group; it is simply an observation on two groups of movie goers. I personally don't see that many movies (I don't think I had been in a movie theater for about a year), so maybe my simpler mind is just more easily amused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonliner
Congrats on your double win Sandra.
|
Loved her
acceptance speech at the Razzies. I like Sandra Bullock - she doesn't take herself too seriously.