Thoroughly enjoyed the film but feel compelled to rant impotently on the internet about the 3D, which was appallingly misjudged.
This is a dark film. Yes in tone, but I mean literally: there's not a lot of colour or brightness in it. Put on a pair of 3D bins which are, - unaccountably - tinted, and it becomes even darker, meaning you miss a lot of detail in a picture that is otherwise beautifully photographed. If I were whoever the director of photography is (I won't insult us all by pretending I know), I'd be fucking livid.
Add to that the fact that it wasn't shot in 3D so the effect was simply retrofitted (a process that seems to me to involve laying two identical prints on top of one another, moving one of them a little bit to the right and Pritt-Sticking them together), and you end up with a product containing only about two decent 3D effects, which you suspect were largely by accident.
We saw the trailer for The Three Musketeers beforehand, which makes a virtue out of having being shot in 3D, and looks to make really good use of it. It'll obviously be a huge heap of shit, but at least they had the good sense to decide in advance they'd be doing it, rather than hamfistedly bolt it on afterwards as a callous ploy to wrench yet more cash out of the hands of starving children.
I took it too far with the starving children thing, didn't I? Still.
Add Your Comments