Up

[Mauzy]

I won't say much yet due to the fear of spoilers, but GO SEE IT. Pixar has definitely hit another home run with this one. Not only is it a great story, but it has some of the coolest shots I've ever seen in a Pixar movie. Having a house float several hundred feet off the ground provides a lot of opportunity for some neat animation. With only a couple minute story issues, I have to give this a very high recommendation.

[hypernova]

Local newspaper critic says it may be considered their best film to date.  He's kind of a joke though...on his summer anticipation movie previews, he actually said he would wait to make a preview until other critics made their comments about a particular movie.  I guess he can't formulate his own opinions.

But Pixar's never failed, so I tend to believe him on this one. 

[Ginsu Victim]

But Pixar's never failed, so I tend to believe him on this one. 

Though Cars is pretty bad (though still better than anything Dreamworks makes)

I loved Up. It was great and the 3D never used a single gimmick. (The short was good, too)

[Mauzy]

Oh yeah! I had forgotten about the short. It was indeed a good one.

[hypernova]

Though Cars is pretty bad (though still better than anything Dreamworks makes)

It's passable, but my least favorite as well.  Definitely not a failure though.

[Ginsu Victim]

Also went to see Drag Me to Hell. It was Sam Raimi-awesomeness all the way!

[SavannahLion]

Though Cars is pretty bad (though still better than anything Dreamworks makes)

It's passable, but my least favorite as well.  Definitely not a failure though.

Th\
What is it about Cars that makes it such a stinker in so many peoples eyes? I happen to like Cars, more so than Ratatouille. I don't think Ratatouille is that bad of a film to begin with, so I don't think Cars really deserves the knocking a lot of people give it.

[danny_galaga]

Though Cars is pretty bad (though still better than anything Dreamworks makes)

It's passable, but my least favorite as well.  Definitely not a failure though.

Th\
What is it about Cars that makes it such a stinker in so many peoples eyes? I happen to like Cars, more so than Ratatouille. I don't think Ratatouille is that bad of a film to begin with, so I don't think Cars really deserves the knocking a lot of people give it.

interesting. Ratatouille is my favourite CG animation movie so far. Don't know about Cars, i had a dodgy dvd that someone gave me and it played up early on, so i can't i liked it or not...

[shardian]

I also don't understand the bad rap that Cars gets. I have to assume that people who don't like it have a natural stigma against NASCAR. I am not a Nascar fan, and loved it. My wife don't even know what the Nascar is, and she really loved it.

Ratatouille was good, but I doubt I will watch it again. It was a bad theme to go with to market to kids. I think most people that have seen it would agree it is largely forgettable and not demanding of multiple viewings.

[csa3d]

What is it about Cars that makes it such a stinker in so many peoples eyes? I happen to like Cars, more so than Ratatouille. I don't think Ratatouille is that bad of a film to begin with, so I don't think Cars really deserves the knocking a lot of people give it.

Cars is actually in my top three favorite Pixar movies.  Perhaps it was the Doc Hollywood storyline that gives it a bad vibe?  I think Cars has a lot of background character humor that you start to notice after you see it a few times.  I need to see up a few more times before it's officially ranked, but so far I think up is my favorite.

-csa

[drventure]

Would it be appropriate for a 5 yr old?

It looks like it might be, but my daughter couldn't watch Ratatouille because of the gun scene (just too scary, we had to shut it off).

She loves Cars, but that was rated G, Up is PG I noticed.

[ChadTower]

Cars was totally forgettable.  I never found a reason to care about any of the characters.  Same with Robots.  Ratatouille was almost as forgettable... just didn't really care that much by the end.

For me it had nothing to do with Nascar.  I don't dislike Nascar in the same way I don't dislike soccer or the difference between hunter green and forest green.  Total indifference.

Best recent animated movie I've seen by faaaaar was Coraline.

I'm going to get killed for this one but last night I saw Meet Dave and liked it.  I didn't think I would, I figured I'd get 15 minutes in and turn it off, but I found as it went on I kept laughing at it.  By the end of that movie I did care.  I'm going to have to toss Meet Dave into the outdoor movie queue.

[shardian]

I'm going to get killed for this one but last night I saw Meet Dave and liked it.  I didn't think I would, I figured I'd get 15 minutes in and turn it off, but I found as it went on I kept laughing at it.  By the end of that movie I did care.  I'm going to have to toss Meet Dave into the outdoor movie queue.

I thought Norbit was hilarious. The critics destroyed that film.

"Ma'am, are you wearing bottoms?"

[ChadTower]

I didn't care much for the Incredibles but I really liked A Bug's Life.  It probably helped that my kids were really small and they loved it.  Contagious enthusiasm.

[FrizzleFried]

Saw the movie on Saturday...it's good.  I did end up with both my eyes aching for 2 days after (they still ache slightly right now!)... the 3d effect made my eyes strain bigtime the first 15 minutes... then they got used to the effect and for the most part it was OK...shots with DEPTH were fine,  but anytime they tried to make the 3d effect come "out" toward the audience,  my eyes strained.   This same thing happened to me with Baowolf(sp?) in 3d.   I don't think my eyes are cut out for this Digital 3d stuff... not worth the constant (though minor) ache I get during and after the flick.   

[shardian]

Went to see this Saturday. It was good, but I felt it was a step below Pixar Standards.

I was anxiously anticipating the plot, because Pixar did a very good job of keeping most of the main plot under wraps - which is odd since most movies nowadays sum up the ENTIRE movie in the trailer (Terminator Salvation anyone?). My aniticpation was never fulfilled, and I think the actual driving plot once they got to South America was pretty weak. The talking dogs were a gimmick better served for a small budget CGI company. They were badly out of place in the movie. Every scene in the movie with the dogs was just plain awkward. All they were missing was a fart joke to complete the cheap gimmick trifecta. Another thing sorely lacking in this movie was the eye candy that Pixar movies are known for. Everything was kind of bland.

And be warned - this is not a feel good movie. More so, it is downright frikking depressing! The tragedy at the beginning set off my waterworks - I am man enough to admit that. Even more so because of what I have experienced, and by the fact I know a couple from Church who could have been the basis for the story. The sheer beauty of the cgi short already had keyed on basic emotions to make the impact even worse. And the ending? That was depressing too. Poor kid...

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the movie to eliciting an emotional response. Take out the dogs, and you have an adult aimed art piece that would be critically acclaimed. Back to the 'dogs tacked on' thought, maybe they were. Ratatoulle was met with mediocre response. Maybe they revised Up to better connect with kids during the film-making process.

I give this Pixar movie 3 out of 5 stars. The total package was sub-par, but still better than most other movies.


I feel special mention needs to be made for the short, Partly Cloudy. That was absolutely beautiful! I think they made the wrong feature length film. Up should have been a feel good short, and Partly Cloudy should have been a full length film. The short was worth the price of admission in my book.
Partly Cloudy gets a 5 out of 5 stars.

[drventure]

Hmm, sounds like it might not be quite right for my 5yo yet...


Thanks for the heads up Shardian!

[saint]

Oh yeah! I had forgotten about the short. It was indeed a good one.

The short cracked me up big. I really liked the movie, concur with the recommendations.

[ChadTower]

I'm finding the animated stuff I'm enjoying more of late seems to be mostly straight to DVD.  More mature movies like Resident Evil Degeneration.  Sure, the animation isn't as cutting edge as you'd get from Pixar or Dreamworks but at the same time it's nice to see a movie that isn't strictly something you'd take kids to see.

[Ginsu Victim]

More mature movies like Resident Evil Degeneration.

Yeah, the animation isn't even as good as some of the games' cutscenes, but maybe I'll check it out. The animation did put me off from seeing it.

[ChadTower]

It's actually a lot like the games' cutscenes.  I wonder if they used the same rendering engine - might make sense since they would want to use the same character models.

[Wade]

Saw the movie on Saturday...it's good.  I did end up with both my eyes aching for 2 days after (they still ache slightly right now!)... the 3d effect made my eyes strain bigtime the first 15 minutes... then they got used to the effect and for the most part it was OK...shots with DEPTH were fine,  but anytime they tried to make the 3d effect come "out" toward the audience,  my eyes strained.   This same thing happened to me with Baowolf(sp?) in 3d.   I don't think my eyes are cut out for this Digital 3d stuff... not worth the constant (though minor) ache I get during and after the flick.   

I have the same problem with 3D, it's pretty painful for me to watch.

Wade

[shardian]

I have the same problem with 3D, it's pretty painful for me to watch.

Wade

You are probably best served to come down to Teays Valley to watch it if you do decide to. They aren't digital, so they have 2D prints of the 3D movies.

[ChadTower]

So it's not just me.  I first noticed it a couple years back in Orlando when we went on a whole bunch of 3D rides.  The Terminator show at Universal was especially bad about that.  The IMAX version of the latest Harry Potter movie had a 3D ending that I could barely tell wtf was going on at times.  Coraline was better but I'll have to keep track next time to see if I'm also having issues with things coming at the seats.  I don't get a headache but I just don't see some of the 3D effect - it comes out as a weird blur.

[shardian]

So it's not just me.  I first noticed it a couple years back in Orlando when we went on a whole bunch of 3D rides.  The Terminator show at Universal was especially bad about that.  The IMAX version of the latest Harry Potter movie had a 3D ending that I could barely tell wtf was going on at times.  Coraline was better but I'll have to keep track next time to see if I'm also having issues with things coming at the seats.  I don't get a headache but I just don't see some of the 3D effect - it comes out as a weird blur.

I got a headache from Journey to the center of the Earth 3D. The preview of the Guinea Pig movie hurt my eyes too. The well done CGI stuff? Not really. I will not see another feature length live action 3D film, and will be careful about the cgi ones. The technology works best for stationary or slow moving imagery on the screen. Sorry, but a fast flying in your face flock of birds will be a massive headache fail every time. Up happened to mostly have slow moving imagery, which better showcases the 3D effect.

[Ginsu Victim]

The trailers for the live action stuff were hard to look at, but Up and Coraline gave me no problems at all.

[ChadTower]

Up happened to mostly have slow moving imagery, which better showcases the 3D effect.

Sounds like they are starting to understand what the technology is and is not good for and wrote the movie to leverage that.

[Ginsu Victim]

I don't recall the exact explanation of it, but fast horizontal camera movement suffers the worst in the new format. I noticed the didn't use a lot of it in Up.

[RayB]

You're also at the mercy of the tech in your theatre. The "good" 3D wasn't possible until they started using 120 hz projectors as a minimum, and actually it is "ideal" with at least newer 240 hz projectors.  That, and you have to wonder if there's calibration required of this stuff...

(I did a lot of reading up on RealD's tech.)

[Ginsu Victim]

I don't understand why they are still using 24 fps. RealD is 72, but that's 24 frames of standard image + 24 left eye + 24 right eye. With today's tech, can't we have smoother framerates? I understand they have introduced 48 fps, but to my knowledge, it's not very widespread at this point. Anyone who knows more about it, feel free to clue us in.

[ChadTower]

Backwards compatibility with older theaters?  What good is a cutting edge $400,000 print if it only plays in 8 theaters?  There has to be some sort of balance being struck between how high end they'll go vs how many theaters they can put a print into.  And who knows if they consider the ticket price here.  If a theater with a high end projector isn't going to charge more, the company can't make more, so why spend the extra cash?


(400k a random figure totally made up randomly and in a random order)

[shardian]

Backwards compatibility with older theaters?  What good is a cutting edge $400,000 print if it only plays in 8 theaters?  There has to be some sort of balance being struck between how high end they'll go vs how many theaters they can put a print into.  And who knows if they consider the ticket price here.  If a theater with a high end projector isn't going to charge more, the company can't make more, so why spend the extra cash?


(400k a random figure totally made up randomly and in a random order)

Apparently this stuff is expensive. We have a brand new megaplex being built in the Huntington Mall. They just announced they will be starting out with a film setup, and eventually moving to digital. That is just crazy they would go through the effort of building a place like that and NOT foresee the cost of digital equipment.

As for 120hz and stuff, Best Buy has 2 high end 120hz 1080P theatre areas set up. I personally feel 120hz 1080P movies look really, really fake and creepy. One was playing Night at the Museum, and the other was playing Cars.

That being said, is frame rates the technological hold back on the home cinema 3D, or is RealD just holding out to maximize their theatre profits? Personally I don't blame them if that is the case.

[ChadTower]

I tried pretty much every home use 3D product I could find for use on CRTs.  None of them really worked well at all - even the spendy electronic LCD shutter glasses didn't do any better than the red/blue ones.  The red/blue worked a little but would eff up the color - the LCD glasses worked about the same but made the pic way too dark.  Neither was very good.  I always figured the CRT is working your eyes and your brain's tendency to fill in gaps hard enough alone.  Could be that's why film is a better medium for it - that's projecting a series of static images rather than a series of individually drawn lines on a CRT.  The brain doesn't have to fill as many gaps and can leap to a third axis with less effort.

[Ginsu Victim]

Sorry, my local theater is a Carmike and I tend to forget that so many theaters still use film. I wasn't thinking.

[Xiaou2]

 A big problem with 3D,  is that everyone's eyes spacing is different.   If the spacing between
your eyes is wider that what the films   'eye-spacing'  is trying to simulate... then you
are probably going to get a bad headache, and or not see the 3d effect correctly.

 I think the only solution,  would be some sort of periscope system... where you could
use adjustable mirrors to get the spacing that the film is representing.

 I personally Hate LCD projector theaters.  Any time something moves fast, its a
blur fest.   I now only see films on non digital theaters when possible.
These projectors do not even come close to the depth, detail, and color richness of true
film, imop.

[shardian]

I personally Hate LCD projector theaters.  Any time something moves fast, its a
blur fest.   I now only see films on non digital theaters when possible.
These projectors do not even come close to the depth, detail, and color richness of true
film, imop.

Then you have one hell of a film theater setup then. All the digital theaters here are DLP, and they absolutely blow the film theaters out of the water.

[ChadTower]

IMAX is film, isn't it?

[Xiaou2]

Whopse.  Dlp.  whatever...  The action is still crappy blurry.

 
 Imax used to be Film,   however,  there are many films shown on imax
screens using the DLP digital projectors.   A lot of people have complained
because of this.

[shardian]

IMAX is film, isn't it?

3D can only be done with digital theater.

[ChadTower]

That's odd.  The IMAXes here have projectors in full view behind glass walls and you can see the film.  It's huge.  Maybe they have multiple projectors, then.

[Xiaou2]

Imax used to be Only Film,   however,  there are many films shown on imax
screens using the DLP digital projectors now.   A lot of people have complained
because of this. (so Yes, they have multiple projectors)

 I will also add,  3d can and Has been done in Imax without Digital projectors.
 
 To do 3d with Film,  they use 2 projectors.

 One image is polorized, and so the eye with the correct polarity will only see that
side.

 Most theaters only have one projector per unit.  So, they were not set up for
3d movies.   Imax 3d had the dual projectors, and was the first fo show full high
def 3d material.   Most of it was cheezy as heck... but it was still very cool. 

 Also, because Imax screen is so much larger... and that the seats are much more
vertical in positioning (closer to the screen)   The 3d image comes much further out
of the screen than in any other normal digital theater.   Litterally, things appear
about an arms length away from you,  from the very back row.

 
 After Digital arrived... I believe they were able to use a fast switching filter to
polarize every other frame... so they would only need one projector.


 Capturing 3d images is still very costly though.   I believe many movies are still
shot with real film, because of the look and light reactions.  3d cameras were insanely
expensive, and used twice as much film obviously.    The digital camera can drop
that cost... but then again... there is a lot more data needing storage too.  Makes
special effects harder to pull of as well.  (CGI that matches the correct perspectives
and depths or real live actors in 3d space)   (as well as things like Fake punches,
which in 3d would be way too obvious to get away with)

 So, most of the 3d stuff will remain as 100% (or close to that number)  of CGI
animation.    Real photographic 3d is So much better than the CGI stuff... so its very sad.
Hopefully it will change...

 At least Coraline was made with stop motion and real photographic 3d.  That was
really incredible in 3d.

[ChadTower]

 Litterally, things appear
about an arms length away from you,  from the very back row.

QFT.  On a good IMAX, on a piece made for IMAX, the stuff makes people swat at images and duck.  In Providence they used to show a preview before regular movies to show off the effect.  Animated letters would fly all around the room and you could see people actually try to grab them.  Totally different than anything I've seen in any other type of theater.

[ChadTower]

Just saw this in 3D.  shardian was right, it made good use of depth, not much of foreground.  The movie was really good and never used the 3D as a gimmick.  I really liked it.

[patrickl]

Just saw this in 3D.  shardian was right, it made good use of depth, not much of foreground.  The movie was really good and never used the 3D as a gimmick.  I really liked it.

I recently watched Ice Age 3 in 3D. The movie probably isn't much to talk about and I saw it in the Bulgarian dubbed version (so I missed at least half the jokes). Still I thought it was rather entertaining.

The graphics look good and the 3D was done really well. The movie is mostly slow moving stuff, but they also do a few chases which look rather cool in 3D. Wish they would do that in a game (although I'd probably puke my guts out if I actually played it)