daaaaaaaaaaamn that is what I call some motherfucking moviemaking right there, man
(aside: this is the only live-action film I have ever seen in 3D where I felt the 3D enhanced the film as opposed to being at best value-neutral or at worst actively detracting from the movie experience)
Related Articles
8 users responded in this post
Planning on seeing it sometime in the next few days.
I don’t know if you keep track of your comments, but there’s a spammer in this old post, as listed in the recent comments section as of this time:
http://mightygodking.com/2008/11/26/brand-new-year/
And it’s the first time I’ve seen a film in 2D and thought, “OK, I kind of wish I’d seen that in 3D.” Unfortunately, our theater of choice has the crappiest 3D system in existence.
…and part of me wants to go see it again in IMAX 3D, and part of me doesn’t know if I ever want to watch that movie again. It was an excellent movie, but man.
Definitely the best use of 3D I’ve seen, surpassing “Avatar” and “Life of Pi”.
That’s two sentences. I want my money back!
Wife and I are very selective about movies we’ll even go to the theater for, much less seek out the 3D version. So many are . . . I mean, Captain America in 3D? I can’t remember if we saw Avengers in 3D, but obviously if we did it didn’t make much impression, and if we didn’t I didn’t miss it.
However, when Jurassic Park was re-issued in 3D this past spring, we were all over that, and I feel the same way about this one. Mainly because I have a feeling I’ll have the same reaction you did.
I don’t know, Neil de Grasse Tyson says Sandra Bullock’s hair doesn’t move like it would really move if she were in a weightless environment.
But Lord of the Rings was okay because hobbit feet really are that hairy.
We all know about astronauts and their love of styling gel.