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

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****
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
@Coz22998 bit of a :thumbsup: for Micheal Ripper in the review.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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
 
Better than Final Score and Hurricane Heist? Surely not:D

If I got shitfaced 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!!
 
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:
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.
 
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 shit, 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..
 
Continuing my 3D marathon (before I have to ditch my 3DTV) [I have left Captain Marvel, Ant man and the Wasp, Hobbit films.. not sure if I'm going to be able to watch all of them in time).

Pacific Rim 3D 4.5/5

Sound: Reference class in LFE use and surround sound elements. Honestly, if you're into home theatre, you have to watch this.

3D Video: Reference class. From the first moment, you realise the 3D is a real absolute gorgeous treat. The colours are punchy, always bright enough, the effects which pop out are at times magical and the sense of consistent depth is perfect.

4K HDR: I did do a few test scenes with the 4K HDR disc and to be quite honest, its simply fantastic and phenomenal too. You can flip a coin on which one to watch. However, I think watching this in 4K HDR on an OLED is going to be difficult to beat. The quality of 3D displays bigger than 65'' is not there for most people, which makes things difficult.


______


Onto the actual film, its really a very basic film which scratches the itch of big robots fighting big monsters in an epic story of humanity's survival. Its like a stripped down American Attack on Titan in a way, which is a compliment.

3 members of the cast have pretty well developed backstories. We have about 8 characters who are some time explored. Reviews would point towards this being a very shallow story and its not that shallow at all compared to other action films I've seen.

The runtime is 120 minutes which is respectable. Improvements wise (for the use of its time), I'd like to see more complexity with the plot, more backstories of the other characters and probably more exposition of what life is like on the outside world with these big ass monsters.

Anyway, I rate it a 4.5/5. I'd actually say just due to its technical aspects alone, it could get close to a 5. The issue with this film is that it is gear-focussed. If you have good home theatre gear (by this, I mean a surround sound setup and subwoofer which can do this film justice and not a soundbar or your TV's speakers), it will blow you away.

Similarly if you have a 100inch 3D projector or an OLED display, you're going to really appreciate everything on offer here.

However if you're watching this on a normal TV, using normal TV speakers, I can't help but feel that you'd think this film is basically a lot of noise. Maybe I'm stating the obvious as this does apply to most action films.

Anyway, I digress because I don't care honestly. I own enough gear to do this film justice, its the reason we all join AVForums, its the reason we post and try to fine tune out setups, its the reason why we spend stupid sums of money when we should probably just be sensible and save it in the bank.. its because films like this come around, and illustrate what home cinema is all about.
 
Continuing my 3D marathon (before I have to ditch my 3DTV) [I have left Captain Marvel, Ant man and the Wasp, Hobbit films.. not sure if I'm going to be able to watch all of them in time).

Pacific Rim 3D 4.5/5

Sound: Reference class in LFE use and surround sound elements. Honestly, if you're into home theatre, you have to watch this.

3D Video: Reference class. From the first moment, you realise the 3D is a real absolute gorgeous treat. The colours are punchy, always bright enough, the effects which pop out are at times magical and the sense of consistent depth is perfect.

4K HDR: I did do a few test scenes with the 4K HDR disc and to be quite honest, its simply fantastic and phenomenal too. You can flip a coin on which one to watch. However, I think watching this in 4K HDR on an OLED is going to be difficult to beat. The quality of 3D displays bigger than 65'' is not there for most people, which makes things difficult.


______


Onto the actual film, its really a very basic film which scratches the itch of big robots fighting big monsters in an epic story of humanity's survival. Its like a stripped down American Attack on Titan in a way, which is a compliment.

3 members of the cast have pretty well developed backstories. We have about 8 characters who are some time explored. Reviews would point towards this being a very shallow story and its not that shallow at all compared to other action films I've seen.

The runtime is 120 minutes which is respectable. Improvements wise (for the use of its time), I'd like to see more complexity with the plot, more backstories of the other characters and probably more exposition of what life is like on the outside world with these big ass monsters.

Anyway, I rate it a 4.5/5. I'd actually say just due to its technical aspects alone, it could get close to a 5. The issue with this film is that it is gear-focussed. If you have good home theatre gear (by this, I mean a surround sound setup and subwoofer which can do this film justice and not a soundbar or your TV's speakers), it will blow you away.

Similarly if you have a 100inch 3D projector or an OLED display, you're going to really appreciate everything on offer here.

However if you're watching this on a normal TV, using normal TV speakers, I can't help but feel that you'd think this film is basically a lot of noise. Maybe I'm stating the obvious as this does apply to most action films.

Anyway, I digress because I don't care honestly. I own enough gear to do this film justice, its the reason we all join AVForums, its the reason we post and try to fine tune out setups, its the reason why we spend stupid sums of money when we should probably just be sensible and save it in the bank.. its because films like this come around, and illustrate what home cinema is all about.

Being a very dark film anyway doesn’t the 3D appear a bit too dark and muddy and a bit difficult to see? I would have thought it would suffer greatly in 3D with the darker picture.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom