|
I disagree on your view about 3D, beasuce if it is used on the right purpose it's a cool enhancement. When writing this I think about Avatar On the high frame rate: I use it on my TV to smooth blu-ray movies, and I quickly got used to it. The image is more clear and I have the impression, that I'm able to perceive more details. Especially on wide camera angles (e.g. landscape-scenes). And I think the smoother the frame rate, the more natural it feels. But I don't want to say 24p is dead or should be, there is a certain aestathic that still can give a movie an edge, e.g. a lot of action- and war-movies made use of stuttering' frame rates to get a somewhat gritty look (for example when lot's of debris and stuff flies around). So, I think there should be enough space for both 24p and 48p. On which I completely disagree: 48p looks like TV-soap . That's crap, it's only a justification by people who urge to hate the high frame rate technology. Why do I write that? Because especially with movies in high-def quality you quickly adjust to the higher framerate.On the Movie: I fully agree. It isn't as epic as The Lord of the Rings and most of the dwarves are difficult to remember (not only their names), but I think that's not a big setback, beasuce most of them are fun by creating lots of funny scenes (dwarf inhaling flies and exhaling them while snorting, I laughed pretty hard on that one). It isn't as serious as TLOTR, but it still is a movie both for young and old (although maybe not too young, for there are still some grim scenes here and there, and children might not be patient enough). And I fully agree on Joe's statement on length', character-developement' and slower pace for better immersion.Great movie.
by Dasha 09:53:18 AM 2013.06.30 |
create your own polls for free no registration required!