What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[Markgway]

A more recent picture of Brad:

[grim_tales]

127 Hours: 4/5

Tough to watch at times and made me feel a bit claustrophobic, but a very good film.

[luckystars]

Tron Legacy Imax 3D!

Yes!! Brilliant day out today, saw Tron Legacy on the biggest screen in the UK

Really worth seeing in the Cinema folks this ones a big and well constructed blockbuster like the best of the Spiderman films or Dark Knight, just don't expect it to be dark it's more fantasy with a charming nostalgia vibe. Visually stunning, the light bikes sequence is sure to be a Cinama great and the finale is really good too. Great fun.

P.S. Mark Kermodes review just makes him look like a cock, I think it's a film you need a heart to enjoy


8.5/10

[bradavon]

It's nowhere near as well constructed as Dark Knight. It has so much unnecessary exposition. It's a really simply story but they managed to make it overly complicated.

That said, I too really enjoyed it. The action is great and the soundtrack even better. I'm a bit of a kid from the 80s, so naturally loved the 80s feel to it. The 3D gimmick is just that, a gimmick. My first 3D film and probably my last. I hated:

1. How dark 3D is. WTF! Why would I want to watch a film with sunglasses on? I took the glasses off at a couple of points during the film, boy 3D makes a film look darker.
2. The quality is noticeably inferior to 2D and as you guys know, I'm no videophile.
3. Having to wear two pairs of glasses is most annoying.

I may give one more 3D film a go but honestly, it's such a gimmick.

[luckystars]

It's nowhere near as well constructed as Dark Knight.

I'd agree with that if the end of Dark Knight wasn't so weak.

[romerojpg]

Tron is so dark, murky and frankly badly made its a joke. It's a strain on your eyes seeing any detail, if it was a HD transfer people would be ripping it apart for shit black crush and awful darkness issues.

The 3D in Tron sucked.

[bradavon]

Isn't 3D that dark normally? I didn't mind the 3D as such, except once and twice it was more there than in your face but then why bother with 3D? If it isn't in your face. It's my only 3D film, so I have no basis for comparison.

You have to also see a 3D film in a multiplex and that means a tenner a ticket. £10! You do get a quid off if you've already got 3D glasses but my local independent (smaller screen but much more enjoyable) is £5-6 tops.

[luckystars]

Looked fine on the Imax guys.

[romerojpg]

No 3D is not supposed to be that dark as standard, Tron messed up big time in my eyes (and plenty others reading the net), unless they were aiming for a so dark its painful look. It was a style I am sure they were going for, but way too damned dark still.
Not a film I would tell anyone to see in 3D, as frankly they would not even know they were watching a 3D film. I could see all the depth stuff, non flashy as it is, but hey I am sure many felt ripped off considering the film was hyped as the biggest 3D event movie ever made.

I still liked it mind you, but really the 3D was pretty much a non event sadly and the film was far, far too dark. No wonder so many people are going to see it again in 2D and enjoying it far more, as frankly the 3D doesn't work in the films favor at all.

Avatar piddled on Tron from miles above in the 3D, as do most average 3D films.

[gasteropod]

3D films are definitely dimmer, it's one of Roger Ebert's complaints.

[luckystars]

I still liked it mind you

Good to hear someone else liked the film at least.

Honestly wasn't dark in the Imax (43 mins or something shot especially for Imax) - I went with 5 other people who really enjoyed the film and not one said they thought it was dark. Only visually stunning!!

[grim_tales]

I find 3D films dimmer as well - its like putting a sun visor on a car window or something.

[romerojpg]

Grim 3D films are not dimmer - they actually turn up the brightness for the 3D films so that when you put on the shades it supposed to look normal brightness when the shades knock it down a little of the brightness.

Well that's what they say they do

I still liked it mind you

Good to hear someone else liked the film at least.

Honestly wasn't dark in the Imax (43 mins or something shot especially for Imax) - I went with 5 other people who really enjoyed the film and not one said they thought it was dark. Only visually stunning!!

It's odd as some people are going back multiple times on different screens (Imax 3D, Big digital 3D and 2D) and saying 2D looks the best, with far better colors and brightness that seems much clearer and easy to keep up with during the (too fast) fast action. Mind you normal people wont notice any of that shit, the same normal people were probably impressed by Piranha 3D

It does sound a bit silly if each screen presentation is that much different to one another, insulting in fact with digital technology of the projectors now they were supposed to stop this difference. Something like Avatar when I saw it on multiple screens in 2D and 3D looked pretty much the same, except the 3D worked on that totally and actually made the film better. Yet colours and brightness etc.. were constant really.

I guess we wait for HD goodness

[luckystars]

It's odd as some people are going back multiple times on different screens (Imax 3D, Big digital 3D and 2D) and saying 2D looks the best, with far better colors and brightness that seems much clearer and easy to keep up with during the (too fast) fast action.

I had a simular experience with Avatar though. When I saw it on Blu-Ray (after Cinema 3D) the picture appeared to have tonnes of extra detail that never came across in the Cinema.

[gasteropod]

Martyrs: All right but I wouldn't watch it again.

[gasteropod]

Grim 3D films are not dimmer

Ebert mentioned it again yesterday:

Note: Yes, it was in 3-D. The more I see of the process, the more I think of it as a way to charge extra for a dim picture.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /110119995

[grim_tales]

Recently:
Christmas Eve on Sesame Street: 5/5

[romerojpg]

Grim 3D films are not dimmer

Ebert mentioned it again yesterday:

Note: Yes, it was in 3-D. The more I see of the process, the more I think of it as a way to charge extra for a dim picture.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /110119995

Well it just goes to show you how clueless he is then he needs to talk to someone who is involved in the 3D process like James Cameron who talked about it plenty. Ebert is a tool, it has been stated countless times that 3D films are brighter in cinemas by directors/stars/people who know their stuff, even 3D Blu Rays are the same.

Ebert may have seen a dimmer image when he saw it, but that's not the way it supposed to be shown, bad set up I say.

[bradavon]

I need to see a second 3D film before fully deciding 3D isn't for me. Tron Legacy was literally the first film I wanted to see that was also in 3D. I wish I had seen Avatar but the trailer made it look so rubbish, I couldn't bring myself to spend £10 to see it. I hear the story etc... is rubbish. It's the visuals (and to a lesser degree 3D) that make the film.

I sure as hell won't be seeing Green Hornet. It looks utter rubbish.

[romerojpg]

Yeah you missed the ball on Avatar that was the 3D game changer and still the benchmark, I cannot see anything coming along making 3D as effective, mainly because of the subject matter of Avatar. Colorful, amazing scenery and images which explode off the screen and seem real and lifelike.

I may suffer Green Hornet this week, it looks total garbage god I hope it flops.

[bradavon]

True. I just know I'd have been at least partially annoyed for having to pay a "tenner" to see a film with likely such a rubbish story. Still, Tron's story was pretty ropey but I still enjoyed it. A lot for the nostalgia factor though.

Avatar 2?

[gasteropod]

I want to see The Green Hornet simply because it was directed by Michel Gondry.

[Markgway]

As someone who doesn't like Michael Gondry or Seth Rogen.........

[grim_tales]

Conviction: 3.5/5

A slow burner, but a powerful drama movie with a good cast, based on real events.

[saltysam]

Inception 3/5

not bad but not great,lengthy but holds the attention though it gets a little confusing.Tom Hardy is excellent in this.cracking music score. by the way if anyone has the triple play or the briefcase version,the dvd in it is defective,WB are replacing them.Doesn't matter i suppose if you are never going to view the dvd or lend it out.