I should have saved my money and bought some sandwiches for tomorrow. Or, maybe given it to a homeless person on the street... they are by far the more entertaining subject.
This movie is a complete disgrace to 3-D IMAX. The technology still has some kinks to work out... it's not always 100 percent efficient in it's polarization of the images (you get image bleeding) and they seriously need to rethink the 3-D dissolve shot (talk about vertigo). But I've seen a 3-D movie that literally got me to the point of tears (Galapagos 3-D) and I am a sucker now for the rest of the crap that has been made in the format... hoping to recapture that feeling I got from Galapagos.
I've read a bunch of comments here and I feel consoled that I am not the only one who thinks it was complete crap. Much has already been said about the movie, so I won't comment on the movie directly...
What I haven't heard mention is the 3-D splendor of an ever-shifting landscape of pimples to be seen on the what, 20 total minutes of facial close-ups of the main teenage actress. I mean, if you are going to project the face of a teenager 6 stories tall AND in 3-D glory, AND for long, lingering shots... you might want to consider hiring somebody without an acne problem??? I know, you might be saying that I am being unfair... maybe I am. I actually think the girl has real potential and charisma, so if she reads this, sorry for commenting about it. It's just a serious distraction. It is true though that I was getting a kick at identifying which scenes they shot on the same day by comparing acne configurations. One scene there would be a huge pimple on the lower right side, and then the next it would disappear (with pimples elsewhere) only to re-emerge several scenes later in the exact spot it was before.
Obviously the budget on the film wasn't big enough to allow even for good acne medication for the main actress let alone a bunch of scenes of dinosaurs.
should be called, "3-D Pimple: Back to the age before clearasil"
This movie is a complete disgrace to 3-D IMAX. The technology still has some kinks to work out... it's not always 100 percent efficient in it's polarization of the images (you get image bleeding) and they seriously need to rethink the 3-D dissolve shot (talk about vertigo). But I've seen a 3-D movie that literally got me to the point of tears (Galapagos 3-D) and I am a sucker now for the rest of the crap that has been made in the format... hoping to recapture that feeling I got from Galapagos.
I've read a bunch of comments here and I feel consoled that I am not the only one who thinks it was complete crap. Much has already been said about the movie, so I won't comment on the movie directly...
What I haven't heard mention is the 3-D splendor of an ever-shifting landscape of pimples to be seen on the what, 20 total minutes of facial close-ups of the main teenage actress. I mean, if you are going to project the face of a teenager 6 stories tall AND in 3-D glory, AND for long, lingering shots... you might want to consider hiring somebody without an acne problem??? I know, you might be saying that I am being unfair... maybe I am. I actually think the girl has real potential and charisma, so if she reads this, sorry for commenting about it. It's just a serious distraction. It is true though that I was getting a kick at identifying which scenes they shot on the same day by comparing acne configurations. One scene there would be a huge pimple on the lower right side, and then the next it would disappear (with pimples elsewhere) only to re-emerge several scenes later in the exact spot it was before.
Obviously the budget on the film wasn't big enough to allow even for good acne medication for the main actress let alone a bunch of scenes of dinosaurs.
should be called, "3-D Pimple: Back to the age before clearasil"