Friday, 30 July 2010
Since the 1950s, 3D films have been hailed as a bit of a gimmick, albeit a gimmick that causes nausea and headache in some individuals - until now that is. With the introduction of digital technology, film making techniques are advancing at an astounding rate and the release of films such as James Cameron’s 3D epic Avatar and Dreamworks 3D animation Monsters vs Aliens is heralding a new age of 3D viewing.
The visual effect of 3D films is created by projecting two images onto the cinema screen at the same time. To the naked eye the image on the screen appears blurred but when watched through special glasses the image appears to come alive in three dimensions (3D). Originally the two images were shown through two separate projectors onto one screen, but this created many problems for projectionists and the viewers alike. 3D films are no longer shown from two projectors. Instead, films
are provided to cinemas on a hard drive with an adapter that separates the two images to be shown through the one projector. Even the glasses have improved, with modern polarised specs replacing the old cardboard version.
One of the most eagerly awaited 3D releases in recent times has been James Cameron’s Avatar.Cameron himself waited 10 years to make the film, stating in 1999 that the technology was not yet available for him to make it. After 10 years of waiting, the technological advances had been made and the film finally went into production and was released in 2D, 3D and 4D. Despite costing over $237 million to produce, it was hailed as a huge success at the box office, becoming the first film to gross more than $2 billion.
Another film that recently took up the 3D mantle is Pixar’s Up, the story of an old man and a young ‘Wilderness Explorer’ who take to the skies in a house held in the air by helium balloons.The film was presented in Disney Digital 3D and went on to gross over $731 million at the box office, making it Pixar’s second most commercially successful film after Finding Nemo. With every other film that is released at the box office now being made in 3D and with the success that they are obviously enjoying, it’s hard to image this time around that 3D films will, as in the
past, simply be a gimmick. The 3D specs are cool, the films are being released in droves and the improvements in technology mean that we do not feel sick any more when watching the screen. We even have 3D technology moving into our homes with the release of 3D televisions, but do we really want to sit in our living rooms wearing 3D glasses just to watch our evening viewing? What if a guest arrives and you haven’t got any spares? With no real way to watch 3D without the glasses, we may
not be quite ready to embrace 3D viewing completely.
What is the next step with 3D? It must be viewing without having to wear the glasses. Research is ongoing and before too long this hurdle will almost certainly be successfully jumped.
If you want to watch any of the 3D films mentioned in this article you can rent them online via Lovefilm. Discount Codes are very often available online and one way to find them is to search for‘Lovefilm Discount Vouchers’. This should bring up an array of sites that will offer money off vouchers
for your 3D film rental.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Loved it: Taken from IMDB
“But the actors are what drag the audience into this story. David Kross is amazing as the young Michael who has to play a range of virginal innocent to wizened and bitter. It's the key role in the film, and we're all lucky he was found to play this role. And the ever confounding Kate Winslet. What an amazing career for this young actress! Running through a list of her credits, she has some of the best performances of the last decade: "Holy Smoke," "Eternal Sunshine…," "Iris," "Finding Neverland," "Little Children." But here she does something very different. Playing what amounts to a monster, we see that they too are human. Not many actresses could bring this off, but it may be her greatest accomplishment to date. Ralph Fiennes brings a continuity to the work David Kross begins, and there's a brief appearance by Lena Olin who commands the dignity the role deserves. “
very true and well rounded opinion.
Hated it: Taken from IMDB
“Just went to see this film. I was amazed to see how bad/clumsy the entire movie was. Obviously I wasn't the only one to think so according to the poor rating at Rotentomatos.com. Is the Oscar so easily influenced by Harvey Weinstein? That's an insult to all cinema fans! As for Winslet's performance, sure she bares and wears make-up. But so what? I was not impressed by her performance here at all. Her turn in Revolutinary Road was far more impressive. I love Kate Winslet, but I'd rather see her winning the Oscar for a better movie. She is still young and I am sure it will happen soon.Oscar should be given based on performance. Not based on campaigning or a sentiment for never winning. That said, Best actress this year should go to Meryl Streep for Doubt.”
Not quite sure if this guy is more upset about the reader or the academy awards
What I thought:
Firstly she don’t half like taking her kit of does our Kate! It’s become like a calling card for her! Since Titanic all of her more rewarding roles have involved stripping off! The Reader is yet another one, its steamy sessions with a young Michael showing once again that old Winslet is up to old tricks, however they are done tastefully and do make you understand young Michael infatuation with Hannah. Those scenes aside the Reader is a very good film, a little bit depressing but throws some very good questions at the audience.
Maybe not Oscar winning but then I haven’t seen doubt yet…