What film are you watching tonight/watched last night???

Garrett

Moderator
We get it. You don't like 3D.



But once again, we get it. You don't like 3D.

When I say 3D is reference quality, I mean it is reference quality for 3D.
They just doesn't like old tech, but seems to likes to start arguments with anyone who does.
 

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
They just doesn't like old tech, but seems to likes to start arguments with anyone who does.

Its the second time in this thread where I've posted a review of a 3D film where he's come down with this negativity (despite admitting he doesn't own a 3D display). Its very irritating.

I own an OLED 4KHDR, a Valve Index (for VR forms of entertainment), a 3D projector and a 3D LCDTV. I have no bias either way.

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I've enjoyed and enjoy SDR, HDR, 4k, 720p 4:3 anime, VR films (of the few there are), 3D films... Why people feel the need to bash a technology which is foriegn to them is beyond my understanding. I see this with VR A LOT.

It doesn't take a genius to understand or know that 3D is on a heavy decline. Commercial TVs don't support it and 3D Blu-rays are becoming rarer by the day. The reasons include the glasses, the cost, the early-days experience, the expense of converting the films to 3D, the expense of filming them in 3D etc. its a more expensive, niche format which requires more care, quality and attention to get the best impact... so it not doing well isn't that surprising.

However it doesn't take away from the increased depth, immersion and special effects 3D provides. I've ran through many scenes and films with people, asking them to compare the 3D to the 4KHDR version. In certain films people by far and away think the 3D is superior (som even say clearer!). My mum (who is quite against normal technology) said "why isn't this more popular and normal". I then pointed towards the dedicated room holding a projector, a 100 inch projected image, the expensive 2x 3D glasses, the special edition 3D Bluray I had to buy for an extra cost and that we had to draw the curtains and watch it in a dim/dark envrionment.

Then she understood.

A lot of enthusiast level technologies are expensive or niche. Subwoofers, proper surround sound setups, proper dolby atmos setups... heck even the basics of home cinema like AVRs are very rare! JVC NX9s are rare... but if someone offered me one, I'd take it straight away :D
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
I love my 3D TV. Don’t have many discs so haven’t used it much but glad I have one.
Also have greatly enjoyed watching 3D movies in PSVR which is surprisingly good.
Shame it didn’t kick off because when it’s good it’s really good.

I've found 3D really excels whenever magic is on screen. Seeing literal magic pop out infront of your eyes is insane. Frozen's "Let it go" scene will forever be extremely iconic in my mind due to that.

Titanic further reiterated that 3D can even be used in films which don't neccesarily play into the gimicks it provides.

Sadly 4K and HDR with their beautiful colour reproduction and detail provides a very very strong alternative with more positives over 3D now IMO. Absolute black is very hard to move back from. I watched Lion King in 3D but I preferred the 4k/HDR disc because the colours were stunning... So I think with 4K/HDR, yes its days are numbered. Similarly Ghost in the Shell was a dark film which I felt I would have been more dazzled by the black. also its how people use or dont use 3D... its clear for example some directors just do 3D for the sake of getting a disc out there.

However over the past 10 years, I've been one of those pathetic idiots who thought 3D was a gimick (although I didn't bash it on internet forums as I'd never experienced it properly) and didn't get to experience it until the past couple of months. And wow did I miss out! this is an old technology which has kind of impressed me... which is saying a lot given I own a Valve Index, Oculus Quest, Rift S... all very superior technologies to spatial representation of an entertainment medium given they're in VR. its just insane than for £50 ( a good pair of 3D glasses ), this form of entertainemnt was available in.. was it 2010? thats mind blowing!

Maybe 3D's next iteration will involve less or no colour loss, lighter glasses etc. I did read they had some passive 3D sets which didn't require glasses, I think James Cameron spoke about them. I think the issue with 3D is TV is a passive form of entertainment. Its meant to be easy. but the 3D glasses and fiddling is not quite there in terms of convienance.


***apologies for the essays****
 

Garrett

Moderator
Its the second time in this thread where I've posted a review of a 3D film where he's come down with this negativity (despite admitting he doesn't own a 3D display). Its very irritating.

I own an OLED 4KHDR, a Valve Index (for VR forms of entertainment), a 3D projector and a 3D LCDTV.

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Why people feel the need to bash a technology which is foriegn to them is beyond my understanding. I see this with VR A LOT.

It doesn't take a genius to understand or know that 3D is on a heavy decline. Commercial TVs don't support it and 3D Blu-rays are becoming rarer by the day. The reasons include the glasses, the cost, the early-days experience, the expense of converting the films to 3D, the expense of filming them in 3D etc.
I was not impressed by it in cinema and would not be into it but at the time I just got set with it on and tried it and was impressed(it actually did not come with glasses) but borrowed a pair. So I bet even those that have 3D and no glasses never tried home viewing.
Even Cos when he has a give away of Blu Ray always keeps the 3D disc. Just because something does not take of does not mean its no good DVD sale still sell more than Blu Ray same for 4K, Samsung stopped making 4K players. So poor sales does not mean something not good, just it never fired the imagination of the masses.
 

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
I was not impressed by it in cinema and would not be into it but at the time I just got set with it on and tried it and was impressed(it actually did not come with glasses) but borrowed a pair. So I bet even those that have 3D and no glasses never tried home viewing.
Even Cos when he has a give away of Blu Ray always keeps the 3D disc. Just because something does not take of does not mean its no good DVD sale still sell more than Blu Ray same for 4K, Samsung stopped making 4K players. So poor sales does not mean something not good, just it never fired the imagination of the masses.

I had a similar experience. At the cinema, I was like wtf is this.

At home, I was pretty impressed. Its definitely not mindblowing. VR was mindblowing for me. But its an added dimension to the picture which we don't get in 2D.

People love to hype up OLEDs for example for their '3D picture' and contrast induced "pop". Well in 3D, things actually pop off the screen :D

I've also found 3D material on my 65'' 902B is not as good as it felt on my 9400 Epson at 95-100 inches so thats probably another issue. Hopefully I'll be able to find a cheap 3D projector which can replace my HW40Es.
 

Robothamster

Distinguished Member
I was not impressed by it in cinema and would not be into it but at the time I just got set with it on and tried it and was impressed(it actually did not come with glasses) but borrowed a pair. So I bet even those that have 3D and no glasses never tried home viewing.
Even Cos when he has a give away of Blu Ray always keeps the 3D disc. Just because something does not take of does not mean its no good DVD sale still sell more than Blu Ray same for 4K, Samsung stopped making 4K players. So poor sales does not mean something not good, just it never fired the imagination of the masses.
Same here, I found 3D in the cinema too dark or not colourful enough, but at home on a TV it is much better.
 

encaser

Member
We have a Samsung 3D plasma in the bedroom and still enjoy films on it.
There are some really impressive films which clearly benefited from it. The detriment being offspring invading to watch the majority of titles aimed at younger generations. But when weighed with the fond memories of our kids trying to catch, swack or duck things flying from out of the screen, like a demented pet, it was and still is a great addition.
 

VisionMan

Well-known Member
Its the second time in this thread where I've posted a review of a 3D film where he's come down with this negativity (despite admitting he doesn't own a 3D display). Its very irritating.
I didn't mean to come across that way and didn't realise it. So I'll shut up about 3D. Peace brothers....
 

Coz22998

Distinguished Member
Eurovision Song Contest: the Story of the Fire Saga (2020, UK Netflix)

Now I have conclusive proof that you could play Sigur Ros' Hoppipolla over anything and it would get me right in the feels.......

Ferrell is rapidly becoming the worst thing in any Will Ferrell movie - his Icelandic fisherman-cum-Eurovision dreamer is a plodding 90's caricature of every man-child he's played since Austin Powers. Thank Christ then for Dan Stevens (the greatest definitely not gay Russian fabuloso the world has ever seen) and Rachel McAdams (as the most devoted and cutest girl. Ever) who singlehandedly rescue this from Ferrell's pratfalling.

Starts strong, lulls horribly as we get to the competition, but picks up massively with the camp-as-Christmas Song-a-Long, a superb spin on the Riff-Off from Pitch Perfect, and from there on in, through Spinal Tap-esque stage equipment malfunctions, through to Pierce Brosnan's stoic fisherman father being disappointed in Ferrell's......no, I think it's just being disappointed in Ferrell, before plunging headlong into the uplifting finals of the most cheesetastic music competition the world has ever known to finish strongly thanks to everyone's favourite emo Icelanders.

Yet another example of my heart being completely disassociated from my head - I know I shouldn't have liked this, but I really kinda did. Easy Sunday afternoon fare with some cheesemungous ear worms that put anything the real Eurovision has produced in nearly forty years to absolute shame.
 

top4719

Well-known Member
Iceman (2017) - 7/10 - This film tacks a background story onto the real life finding of the body of man found in the Oztal Alps in 1991 and believed to be over 500 years, its a revenge story with very little dialogue (what bit there is is in an ancient language with no subtitles), its fairly easy going, a bit brutal and an enjoyable watch if your in the mood for something a little different.
 

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
Dredd 3D 4.5/5

This film has completely caught me by surprise.

Firstly, is the score inflated? Yes. Why? Because its pure entertainment, action in its most simple form coupled with a reference level DTS soundtrack and some subtle and no-so-subtle 3D which enhances the film.

The plott is really simple. Judge Dredd and a trainee judge go into a building and continue going up the building in a boss/video-game like ascenscion against the bad guy, who is the hot evil queen from Game of Thrones.

The trainee judge has a few tricks up her sleeves which other Judges don't have.

Theres the odd plot twist, the film doesn't take itself too seriously. Its honestly probably more 4 but because of how absolutely spectacular the sound is, and how I really did enjoy it with its very respectful 90 minute runtime, I struggle to take it down a notch in my score.

Action films can sometimes drag, this one really didn't.
 

Coz22998

Distinguished Member
The Mummy (1959, streaming free on Amazon prime)

After the huge success of Hammer's first golden age horrors (Dracula and The Curse of Frankenstein in the two previous years), the next Universal monster ripe for remaking was The Mummy.

Borrowing liberally from the original as well as several of its sequels (including The Mummy's Tomb and The Mummy's Hand), its got all the classic story beats - a tomb of a mysterious princess is unearthed in turn of the century Egypt and those responsible for the discovery are murdered one by one on their return to England several years later - and the prerequisite characters (including a reincarnation of the long dead princess and a fez wearing antagonist, hell bent on revenge and guiding the long dead high priest to do his bidding).

Its got so much of what makes a typical Hammer film from this time - sumptuous sets in glorious technicolour, overwrought and histrionic scores and their repertoire of actors from their A-list (Lee and Cushing) down to their B- and C-list (I'm beginning to think Michael Ripper was in every British horror film ever made around this time).

Its a shame that the film drags somewhat even clocking in at under 90 minutes - with only three protagonists to be killed, there is a lot of padding in the second act as we get very long flashbacks to Ancient Egypt that really don't add an awful lot to proceedings - yes, they set up the mummy's relationship with the princess but it feels like a lot of time is spent getting to this single narrative payoff.

Cushing is great as ever as is Lee as the mute and virtually entirely covered mummy - sure, the make-up doesn't match Jack Pierce's classic, but then again Lee is stomping around the English countryside like a hulking slasher, so needed a somewhat more robust make up I'm sure.

Not quite as good as those other early Hammer classics, this film seems to suffer more than other mummy films from that very traditional narrative. And yet with Cushing and Lee, its never less than hugely entertaining and very watchable indeed.
 
Last edited:

Garrett

Moderator
The Mummy (1959, streaming free on Amazon prime)
Its got so much of what makes a typical Hammer film from this time - sumptuous sets in glorious technicolour, overwrought and histrionic scores and their repertoire of actors from their A-list (Lee and Cushing) down to their B- and C-list (I'm beginning to think Michael Ripper was in every British horror film ever made around this time).
And the rest of Hammer films he was in 2 Pirate films and in Captain Clegg/Night Creatures which in that was Peter Cushing sidekick who were also ex pirates but not bad ones and where altruistic/philanthropic albeit from profits from smuggling. Released round the same time (62 and 63)as Disney's Dr Syn so had to call him Dr Blyss as I think Disney had more rights in the book, but both based on Russel Thorndike's books.
Also filmed in 1937
Wish they reprint the series of books, also begging for a tv series.

Think Micheal must have had shares in Hammer. They don't make character actors like them any more.
 

Garrett

Moderator
@Coz22998 bit of a :thumbsup: for Micheal Ripper in the review.
 

DrPhil

Distinguished Member
Watched Hotel Mumbai last night. Its downright grim in its portrayal of Islamic fundamentalists carrying out atrocities, but also gives a terrifying insight into the brainwashing that allows these people to turn off their humanity and slaughter people in cold blood.

Certainly not a feel good film, but definitely a good one.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Watched Hotel Mumbai last night. Its downright grim in its portrayal of Islamic fundamentalists carrying out atrocities, but also gives a terrifying insight into the brainwashing that allows these people to turn off their humanity and slaughter people in cold blood.

Certainly not a feel good film, but definitely a good one.
That's Sky's best jobber to date (if it was them who were behind it, I'm sure it was though).

I agree very good, and a true story to boot.
 

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
X-Men Apocalypse 3D 3.5/5

I have mixed thoughts on this film. I genuinely enjoyed certain storylines and I certainly wasn't bored during the film but its just a bit of a mess. The storyline is good in that it involves a lot of characters but very messy in execution.

I think the biggest issue with this film is this is Apocalypse done wrong. They should have just ripped the Apocalypse from the animated series, voice and plot, and this would have been an awesome film.

Technically its good, audio, visual and 3D. Cinematography is distinctly average and this film will age so quickly.

Overall though, just a big ball of average if I'm being honest.

I did strangely.. enjoy it though. But I'm an X-Men fan and feel as if no character was done any justice. Based on that, its probably a bit surprised I'm giving it 3.5.
 
Last edited:

Goooner

Distinguished Member
That's Sky's best jobber to date (if it was them who were behind it, I'm sure it was though).

I agree very good, and a true story to boot.
Better than Final Score and Hurricane Heist? Surely not:D
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Better than Final Score and Hurricane Heist? Surely not:D
If I got sh*tfaced this Saturday and took 90 minutes worth of film on my phone from town of a few punch-ups and some flashing blue lights, I guarantee you a better flick than Final Score - and if it's raining even Hurricane Heist!!
 

VisionMan

Well-known Member
X-Men Apocalypse 3D 3.5/5

I have mixed thoughts on this film. I genuinely enjoyed certain storylines and I certainly wasn't bored.
Oh. I'm an X-Men nut and apart from the ending thought it was crap. Its certainly one of the worst movies in the series. 4/10. It really is that bad.
 
Last edited:

top4719

Well-known Member
And the rest of Hammer films he was in 2 Pirate films and in Captain Clegg/Night Creatures which in that was Peter Cushing sidekick who were also ex pirates but not bad ones and where altruistic/philanthropic albeit from profits from smuggling. Released round the same time (62 and 63)as Disney's Dr Syn so had to call him Dr Blyss as I think Disney had more rights in the book, but both based on Russel Thorndike's books.
Also filmed in 1937
Wish they reprint the series of books, also begging for a tv series.

Think Micheal must have had shares in Hammer. They don't make character actors like them any more.
I remember (vaguely) watching a film in my childhood, there was a scene where people are walking through some marshes (I think) when a load of scarecrows eyes suddenly light up etc, I'm sure it had some pirate/smuggler theme.
 

kenshingintoki

Well-known Member
Oh. I'm an X-Men nut and apart from the ending thought it was crap. Its certainly one of the worst movies in the series. 4/10. It really is that bad.

Yeah its just so unfaithful to the original material.

When Jean has a phoenix moment, the whole tone should be "oh sh*t, we have a bigger pain in the ass on our hands now" but instead its like its this cool power she can tap into and tap out of with no repercussions..
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

LG CX 4K OLED TV Review: The best TV of 2020?

Trending threads

Latest News

TV licence fee now applies to over 75s from 1st Aug
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
New H.266 video codec promises 50 percent data saving
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Toshiba launches UL20 4K HDR TVs from £299
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG GX soundbar launches in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky Q updates smart features and adds Disney Plus in HDR
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom