Is Digital 3D really the future (and savior) of movie theaters and moviegoing? Or is it, like theatrical releases in general, merely a preview of what's to come out soon on home video? As much as I have championed the new technology -- with some exception -- and touted it as a sort of newhope for the exhibition industry, I have had some minor doubts that I've been trying to hide away and ignore. But it may finally be the time to acknowledge and address the facts: Digital 3D is not here to save cinemas and it isn't exclusively the future of movie going. It's the future of movie watching as a whole. And since we're already prone to choosing our living rooms to auditoriums, it's mostly the future of home viewing.
There have been 3D processors available for your home theater for years, courtesy of Sensio, which I actually wrote about way back in 2006. However, the expenses required to equip your home with the technology were enough that it didn't seem too threatening. And such products aren't exactly that well known, probably for that reason that they aren't reasonable for the masses. Meanwhile, the new 3D technology for cinemas has since been given a whole lot of exposure, mainly because they are available or are becoming available all over the globe. 3D movies are also more expensive than regular movies, but they're still relatively affordable to just about anyone. So, obviously in the last two years, it has been easy to forget about Sensio and go on being excited about Real D and the other companies making Digital 3D equipment for movie theaters.
30 Days of Night In Barrow, Alaska, winter brings 30 days of darkness along with the biting cold. (And I thought dark-by-5 pm sucked.) No sun, just bitterly cold blackness. Unsurprisingly, this attracts some particularly nasty, bloodthirsty vamps -- ones that aren't sexy and selective like Anne Rice's fanged ones. They decide to take advantage of their 24-hour, 30-day free-for-all and start killing off the town's residents who didn't head south. You've got Josh Hartnett and Melissa George as human vamp fighters ill-equipped for the challenge, the Renfield-like Stranger (Ben Foster), and a troupe of baddies led by the wonderful Danny Huston's Marlow. Both Erik and Ryan dug the film, saying things like: "Visually...the film looked absolutely incredible" and "there's still a solid, well-constructed vampire movie to enjoy here, and I did enjoy it."
After all of the funky mid-production goodies that came from the set, it's not surprising that there's a bunch of features on this release. You've got a commentary with Hartnett, George, and producer Rob Tapert, a bunch of featurettes about adapting the graphic novel, building the sound stage, camera techniques, gorey stuff, stunts, vampire design, night shoots, and casting. There's also Episode 1 of Blood +, and for the Blu-Ray editions, there's even a film/novel comparison gallery.
Beowulf While I wasn't the biggest fan of this one (I missed seeing the subtle facial expressions of the excellent actors involved, and preferred the earlier Beowulf & Grendel), this is certainly the biggest release to hit shelves this year. Along with Neil Gaiman, Robert Zemeckis went back to performance-capture technology to bring the Old English epic to the screen. Ray Winstone roars as the powerful Beowulf, Crispin Glover screeches as the desperate Grendel, and Angelina Jolie seduces as Grendel's mother -- otherwise known as Jolie nude, with a tail. And we can't forget the Hopkins, Wright Penn, Malkovich, and Lohman. There are some pretty stunning visuals, and with this cast, you can't go completely wrong.
As for the DVD, you can pick up the director's cut, which offers a solid array of goodies besides Zemeckis' cut. There's bits on some of the actors and their performance-captured performances, designing the monster, the poem (and how Zemeckis actually hates it -- go figure), and deleted scenes with different stages of completion.
I just love really random connections between things, which is why I'm digging the story that popped up over at The Hollywood Reporter. It seems that Paramount Pictures is teaming up with a teen-centric virtual world called Habbo to put together a series of virtual goodies based on three of their films. Habbo will have the merchandising rights to two unsurprising flicks -- Beowulf and The Spiderwick Chronicles. However, the third is a totally left-field addition: Mean Girls. Which of these is not like the others? I mean, yes, it's a teen movie, but it's much older than the other two and a totally different sort of film than its companion flicks. How on earth did it get on the list?
As for this whole "virtual marketing" thing... Habbo is this virtual teen hangout/social networking site where you make avatars and interact with other people in these little faux rooms. The deal will allow the site to include themed clothing and furniture for these little things, so I guess one person can dress up like Grendel and then drool over a mini, virtual Cady Heron. But movie goodness doesn't come free. The site allows the kids to purchase credits to buy virtual products. Ah, there's nothing like paying for fake furniture and clothing.
Most people have a favorite place to sit when going to the movies. Some people like the back row; some people like the centermost spot (middle seat, middle row); some people like to sit near the front so that they can stare up at the screen and let the picture fill the limits of their peripheral vision.
I figure that last preference made more sense fifty years ago, when Cinerama and CinemaScope presented vast, expansively shot epics and westerns that were made to surround our senses and engulf our whole eye-span. Nowadays, most movies are too fast-cut and often the camerawork is too shaky to really work for close viewing. Have you ever been forced to sit in the first few rows when a movie is sold out? Wasn't it hard to tell what was going on most of the time?
Personally, I like watching movies close up, when it's appropriate. Unfortunately, it rarely is. But movie theaters can't just start removing those front rows because they aren't good for the moviegoer's eyes. No, that would mean a lot fewer tickets sold, a lot fewer popcorns sold, and a lot less money going to both the theater owners and the movie distributors. So, moviemakers should go back to making movies that are more accommodating to the theatrical audience, right? Yeah, that's not going to happen.
It's only been three months since I began this column on theater exhibition and movie going, but already I've covered all kinds of experiences, both good and bad. And now I'd like to recap the year, concentrating on that quarter year in which The Exhibitionist existed, in order to present you with the best and the worst theatrical experiences I had in 2007. However, while this may seem like a cheap way to link back to previous writings and make an easy article out of that, I assure you that it's only a coincidence that some of my favorite and least favorite moments in exhibition happened since October. Anyway, there are plenty of moments I cite that were never mentioned in The Exhibitionist, so regular or new reader, read on:
Theatrical Experiences of 2007 Part I: The Worst
Pan's Labyrinth at Cobble Hill Cinemas, Brooklyn, NY, 01/16/07
I came away from watching Guillermo del Toro's "masterpiece" underwhelmed, thanks primarily to my inability to appreciate the Oscar-winning cinematography of Guillermo Navarro. How so? Well, the projection of the film where and when I saw it was terribly underlit. At least, I'm guessing it was. I've only seen the film partially since then, on DVD, and at that time it looked much brighter than I remembered.
At the time I saw the film theatrically, though, I just assumed the film was really that dark. Well, actually I thought it could be faulty projection, but I didn't want to get into the issue with the management. Most theaters are quite defensive when it comes to the subject of whether or not they dim the projector bulbs, and whether or not it matters. Even before I became a projectionist I knew thanks to Roger Ebert's Answer Man columns about the stupidity and annoyance of turning down the power on projector bulbs, but unfortunately not everyone else seems to know.
There's a continuing debate about whether or not computer-animated films should be eligible for visual effects awards. But despite the fine line seen by some, others are quick to point out that many effects artists have the same function on Surf's Upas they do on Spider-Man. To them, it should come as quite a triumph that the Oscar shortlist for the visual effects category includes two animated films, Ratatouille and Beowulf. According to the Hollywood Reporter, they join 13 other effects-heavy movies, including definite front-runners Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's Endand Spider-Man 3. The trade points out, however, that this is not the first time animated films have joined the effects race. Back in 1994, The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of the three nominees (against Cliffhangerand obvious winner Jurassic Park).
The animated effect issue is different now, though, then it was 14 years ago. Animated films now have their own Oscar category, and it's fair to say that is the place to recognize Ratatouille and Beowulf (actually Beowulf shouldn't be recognized at all). Typically movies nominated in the visual effects category are popular blockbusters that wouldn't otherwise receive notice from the Academy. Until there's an Oscar for best sci-fi/fantasy or action movie, this is one of the best ways for a little movie like Transformers to be put in the spotlight. Sure, I'm being sarcastic, but nonetheless I like the category being the place for those movies actually seen by the majority of Oscar telecast viewers.
Here's some great news for all those who felt left out of the Beowulf IMAX 3D experience: 100 new IMAX screens will be installed in cinemas throughout the U.S. over the next three years. According to the Hollywood Reporter, IMAX made a deal with AMC Entertainment to put its digital projection systems in 33 of the theater chain's locations. The first 50 will begin installation next July, with 25 more installed in 2009 and a final 25 installed in 2010. Apparently this will double the amount of IMAX 3D screens in the country. Had this happened prior to the release of Beowulf, the movie could have been twice as popular -- and twice as big a hit (currently it is just barely a success).
This is a big deal, considering I always just imagined IMAX screens were a luxury. Now more people will be able to see the IMAX 3D versions of Monsters vs.Aliensand Avatarif they are available in the format (I don't see why they wouldn't be). I didn't even really like my recent experience with IMAX 3D, yet I did promise to give it another shot. Unfortunately, it seems IMAX is more interested in broadening its reach rather than concentrating on my own satisfaction. Yeah, I'd be pretty stupid if I thought they'd spend money on fixing the problems I alone have with the format, but I will optimistically imagine the company will at least try to make the new locations as close to perfect as possible. Since AMC will be in charge of reconstructing its existing auditoriums, I hope that they fix the usual seating arrangement so all viewers have the same optimal experience.
In what seems like a repeat of last year, the 2008 Annie Award nominations include a Pixar movie and a movie about penguins. The top contenders for the 2007 Annies, which recognize the best in animation, were Carsand Happy Feet. The former ended up winning the big award, Best Animated Feature. However, a couple weeks later it was Happy Feet that won the corresponding Oscar, so the Annies can not be looked at to predict the Academy's decision. In 2008, though, the two awards should actually match. The only real contender for both the Annie and the Oscar is Pixar's Ratatouille. There isn't much chance of this year's penguin movie, Surf's Up, winning either award. If there's any minor competition for Pixar, it's from Persepolis. The other two nominees for the Best Animated Feature Annie are Bee Movieand The Simpsons Movie.
Ratatouille was the leader in nominations at 13, while Surf's Up received the second highest amount with 10. In addition to the top award, the two films are competing in the categories for writing (also competing: Simpsons and Persepolis), storyboarding (also competing: TMNT; Meet the Robinsons; Bee Movie), production design (also competing: Beowulf), directing (also competing: Shrek the Third; Simpsons; Persepolis), character design (no other competitors), character animation (no other competitors, but Surf's Up received two mentions here) and animated effects (also competing: Spider-Man 3; Disney short How to Hook Up Your Home Theater; Ratatouille received two mentions here). One category that Bee Movie seriously missed is voice acting, which features three nominations for Ratatouille -- for Janeane Garofalo, Ian Holm and Patton Oswalt.
One thing that is interesting about the Annies is how the awards can be distributed to many different movies. Last year, Over the Hedgewon the directing, storyboarding and character design categories, Flushed Awaywon in writing, voice acting, animated effects, character animation and production design categories and Happy Feet took away no awards. Then again, the year before, Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbitpicked up ten trophies and then went on to pick up the Academy Award. So, the 2008 Annies could go any number of ways.
Well, I did it. I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D. It cost me $17.50, which included the Fandango service charge (I knew it would sell out, even for a 1:45 showtime on a Monday afternoon). And guess what? I don't think the price was worth the experience. Maybe it would have been worth a regular ticket price ($11), but I'm not even sure about that.
Now, here is not the place for me to discuss the actual movie. Both Scott Weinberg and James Rocchi have already delivered you their reviews, and I think their thoughts were sufficient. This is also not the place for me to discuss the box office -- which was relatively disappointing considering its budget, yet relatively successful in terms of the per screen average of its 3D screens (I may comment on the 3D box office later).
Instead, this is the place for me to comment on the experience of Beowulf's exhibition in the IMAX 3D format. First, I'd like to apologize for not being able to afford the money or the time to see the regular 2D version, or even the non-IMAX 3D presentation, either via Real D or Dolby Digital's technology. I can just barely compare this to my prior experience with Real D 3D, which I've raved about and have honestly championed as a possible future for the success of cinemas. Fortunately it's the non-IMAX technologies that will end up in most theaters, since not every screen in the world can be an IMAX.
Why are so many film critics rushing around in November as if it's the end of the year? Is Atonement truly worthy of the Oscar buzz? Will Brian De Palma's Redacted be heard over the roar of its own controversy? When did Southland Tales go south, exactly? Is there any 'there' there in I'm Not There? And if Beowulf's truly the future of movies, are we all doomed? Joining James for this edition of The Rocchi Review is Cinematical's Jeffery M. Anderson, whose work for Metro newspapers and the Las Vegas Weekly can be found at Combustible Celluloid. You can download the entire podcast right here -- and we hope you enjoy; those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.
With Beowulf, the latest motion-capture film from director Robert Zemeckis, one of mankind's oldest tales is hurled up onto the movie screen using the cutting edge of new technology. As in The Polar Express, Zemeckis's first foray into motion-capture animated moviemaking, the actors are first shot on a soundstage, wearing motion-indicating elements that allow computers to turn their movements and facial expressions into sets of data; then, that data is animated by computers and artists, so that real motion and facial expressions can be re-cast in fantastic settings and melded with wild imaginings. As if that weren't enough, the resulting movie in this case has also been enhanced so the theatrical experience is 3-D; swords, dragons and flame leap from the screen, hovering right before your very eyes. It all sounds wonderful.
But, as so often happens in life, the execution falls somewhat short of the expectation. I know it seems like a betrayal of the critic's job -- to look deeper, to see beyond the obvious -- to begin with complaints about the animation in the film, but it would be even more of a betrayal of the critic's job to not point out the most obvious and glaring fact about Zemeckis's technique. Namely, that it looks horrible. A scientist working in the burgeoning field of the human perception of virtual simulacra would talk Beowulf's animation in the context of the "uncanny valley," the phenomena where, when confronted with a robot or virtual avatar that has a high degree of match to human movement and appearance, the human mind flip-flops and instead obsesses about the smaller elements of mis-match, jarred by the mistakes in the image instead of thrilled by the accuracies. (Confronted with a 98% accurate simulacra, for example, most people instead fixate on the 2% difference.) But I'm not a scientist working in the burgeoning field of the human perception of virtual simulacra; as a layman, I can only offer that in Beowulf (as in The Polar Express), Zemeckis seems to have created a world peopled by drowning victims brought back to life after a three-week soak: Pale, puffy, slow-moving revenants with no light in their eyes.
Note: The Beowulf screening that I attended was held at a massively awesome IMAX cinema in London. The film was presented in a frankly stunning 3-D format that I honestly cannot wait to experience again. Having said that, I shall try to review the film in two parts: the presentation and the film itself.
Part I: The Presentation
Holy ****ing moly. I've simply never seen anything like it. IMAX 3-D and a movie that was tailor-made for this kind of presentation. Not a "big-scale" movie that just happened to look good on a giant screen (like, say, Superman Returns), but a film that was actually constructed with the giant 3-D exhibition in mind. And to say it works resoundingly well is an understatement on par with "baby ducks are cute." Having spent the last thirty years scouring through as many movies as humanly possible, I consider myself a passionate-yet-cynical flick-watcher. It takes a lot for me to be "stunned," "dazzled," or "amazed" -- but this screening of Beowulf is something I'll remember for a very long time. Basically, this is the finest "3-D" experience I've ever witnessed, from the "yikes, it's coming right at me!" stuff to the feeling of total "immersion" in the story. On a purely visual scale, Beowulf is one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen.
Spend the extra gas money if you have to, but find an IMAX theater and see the flick there. You won't be sorry.
Part II: The Movie
My main problem with Robert Zemeckis' most recent animated experiment (The Polar Express) was that it was very lovely to look at, but I found a hollow core at the center. Very little heart, and even less of a narrative, basically: A cinematic novelty item. But when I heard that Zemeckis would be teaming with writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary for a relatively faithful adaptation of the legendary Beowulf poem, I was more than a little intrigued. Having recalled enough of Beowulf from high school to know that it was a grim and moody adventure story, I filed this flick into my "wanna see" pile and waited to see how things turned out.
In the time I've been doing this feature I don't think this has ever happened before: last week's number two film is number one this week. None of the new films from last week were up to the challenge of outselling Bee Movie and American Gangster, and the animated Jerry Seinfeld comedy managed to outdo the Denzel Washington/Russell Crowe crime drama and usurp the top spot. Don't believe me? Look for yourself: 1. Bee Movie: $26 million. 2. American Gangster: $24.3 million. 3. Fred Claus: $19.2 million. 4. Lions for Lambs: $6.7 million. 5. Dan in Real Life: $5.9 million.
Escape from modern life seems to be the key to this week's releases with one taking place in the past, another taking place in a contemporary fantasy world and a third in a fantasy version of the 8th century.
Beowulf What's It All About: The epic poem believed to have been penned around 700 A.D. is adapted for the big screen using an all digital approach with the actors performances being rendered via motion capture. Why It Might Do Well: The action looks spectacular. Why It Might Not Do Well: I can't be the only person who thinks that, despite the remarkable technical achievement at work here, it still looks like a video game. Number of Theaters: 2,800 Prediction: $30 million
Love in the Time of Cholera What's It All About: The story of a love triangle in South America at the turn of the 20th century from the director of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Why It Might Do Well: Because love and infectious diseases go together like peanut butter and jelly. Why It Might Not Do Well: Period drama is a tough sell, and the relatively small release will keep it out of the top five. Number of Theaters: 800 Prediction: $3.5 million
Before I get to the meat of this week's column, I have a little appetizer of an issue to discuss. The other day, I went to see American Gangster at a Regal theater and once again participated in the Guest Response System. But unlike my first experience, I actually had to use the thing this time. While pressing the "Other Disturbance" button over and over and over because of a loud toddler, then finally after too long a time receiving responses in the forms of, first, a security guard and, second, a crew of ushers, I eventually realized that there is no way to communicate what exactly is the disturbance you're alerting the staff about. I don't want to say the parents of the toddler were covering the kid's mouth each time a Regal employee scoped out the auditorium, but coincidentally there was no disturbance whenever someone was monitoring the audience. And so, despite my having the little complainer pager, I put up with two-and-a-half hours of a sporadically loud child who should have never been brought to American Gangster in the first place.
Okay, now that I've got that off my plate, it's time to address the main topic of the week:
On Friday, Robert Zemeckis' new performance-capture "animated" film hits 2,800 screens across the U.S. More than 700 of those screens will show the film in digital 3-D, via IMAX, Real D or Dolby systems (yes, there's three different 3-D systems). It's apparently the largest rollout of a 3-D release ever, and it could mean big things for both Hollywood and the exhibition industry. Or it could be just another 3-D movie, no more an event than when Disney's Chicken Little came out a couple years ago touted as the first digital 3-D release to hit regular cinemas.
I think we all know that Ratatouillewill win the 2008 Oscar for Best Animated Feature. So, do we really need to waste time nominating others? Yesterday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences named 12 movies eligible for the award, a shortlist that will eventually be pared down to three finalists when the Oscar nominees are announced in January. Had there been at least 16 eligible animated films this year, the number of nominees would be five, but with only 12, the category will only see three contenders. What could they be? Certainly Ratatouille will be one of them, and it's my guess that Persepolis and Surf's Up(the Academy loves penguins)will be the ones to join the Disney/Pixar sure-thing. I'm on the fence about Beowulf, especially after reading Scott's praise this morning, but I think it has a good chance of eventually being disqualified from being nominated. There's some debate already about whether or not it is technically an animated film. Another movie I have doubts about is Alvin and the Chipmunks, which seems to be primarily live-action. Last year, Arthur and the Invisiblesended up out of the race due to its own matter of having too much live footage.
The full list of animated features: Ratatouille; Persepolis; Shrek the Third, which should be the first of its series to not get a nomination; The Simpsons Movie, which the Academy should deem too television for its award; Bee Movie, which would only get a nomination if the Academy needed Seinfeld to attend the ceremony -- and hopefully it doesn't; TMNT (aka Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles); Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters; Alvin and the Chipmunks; Beowulf; Meet the Robinsons; Surf's Up; and Tekkonkinkreet, a Japanese film by American director Michael Arias, which could be a dark horse if Persepolis wasn't the favorite for the necessary foreign animated selection. I'm not sure why Happily N'Ever After was excluded, but I guess it wouldn't have a chance anyway. What do you think should win, or at least make the nomination round?
I just love really random connections between things, which is why I'm digging the story that popped up over at 
There's a 
Here's some great news for all those who felt left out of the 
In what seems like a repeat of last year, the 
.jpg)
Beowulf
I think we all know that 
Insert Caption: Indiana Jones DVDs_thumbnail.jpg)
Cinematical Seven: When an Animated Series Goes Live Action ... and Gets it Right_thumbnail.jpg)
Full 'G.I. Joe' Cast Photos!
