The Sellout. 3D

Losing Your 3D Virginity

Q: Can I take my five year-old boy to watch Shrek 3D?

A: It’s up to you. You’re the parent.

Q: No, I mean, what is your expert opinion?

A: Wow, I’m flattered that you would think me an expert in 3D. Hehe. But I’m not. But I hope to be, if becoming one means getting an MTRCB Deputy card.

Anyway, if it were up to me…no.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, the primary question you have to answer is, “What makes Real D 3D a mind-blowing experience? The answer: It makes viewing more realistic by adding depth to flat, two-dimensional moving pictures. That doesn’t mean that pictures don’t have depth. They do. Check out this picture:

Now this picture may be two-dimensional, but it has depth. Maybe implied depth, but it does have it. That’s because the viewer (you) knows that Puss is nearer to the camera, while Shrek is placed farther from the camera. In simpler terms, you have a sense of foreground, middleground, and background. And that is enough to create depth in the viewer’s mind.

Real D 3D, however, creates depth not in the viewer’s mind, but on the image itself, as projected onscreen. Your mind no longer processes or simulates depth from the information it receives, because it is already given depth at the onset. Depth is in fact being spoon-fed to you.

Now to your child, all of this matters not. To him, a regular movie and a 3D movie are the same. Yes, he may sense something different with the viewing, but that’s about as far as it’ll go. Because to your child, the movie in his head is more realistic than any Real D 3D flick. All he needs is a stimulus.

When your kid watches a movie, he sees it in his head as 4D, or 5D even. To him, even the smell of the place is there. And even emotion. When a monster screams, the kid cringes. Because to him, the monster is real. And movie monsters are real enough to follow the kid all the way to his nightmares.

This seemingly magical trait is present in everybody, even adults, but only a select few can bring them out again. But this trait is present in all children. Real D 3D, I believe, was created for adults specifically to force this magical trait out of the adult system, buried under years of stress, problems, and earthly concerns. Now as long as your child still has this magical trait coming out of him naturally, you don’t need to bring him to a 3D movie for him to have a 3D experience. You can just take him to a 2D movie, and he will have a 5D experience.

But again, you’re the parent, so it’s up to you.


*Originally published on Da Couch Tomato
also published in Ask the Shaman
pic from cinemablend.com

How to Train Your Dragon. 3D

DreamWorks is the new Pixar.

Sorry. I just had to say that.

Before watching this, I researched on it, to find out if it was converted 3D or not. I couldn’t find anything on the matter. So I decided, what the heck.

And surprise, surprise. I don’t think this was converted 3D. Any 3D film that has me giggling like a kid is Real D 3D. There were times a when you’d think the Viking ships would smash your face in. And there would also be times when you would tilt your head unconsciously whenever a projectile is hurled in your direction. And this head tilt is a pure reflex action. This was thick, depth-filled 3D. Not like Alice in Wonderland. Sorry, Tim Burton.

This film still employed the rack focus technique, as discussed in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. But that’s forgivable, as 3D cinematography is still in its infancy, if not non-existent. But what really got me was the dissolves. I don’t understand why American filmmakers don’t like the dissolve as a transition. It’s simple, effective, and looks damn good in 3D. They employed a lot of dissolves in U2 3D, and it just blew my mind.

Now, moving on to the regular review.

If Pixar doesn’t watch its back, DreamWorks could break the Pixar monopoly on quality computer-animated films. How to Train Your Dragon, though, was based on a book. It still can’t do original screenplays like Pixar can, but it’ll get there. Give it a few more flicks.

I loved the character designs here, especially the Viking hair. The dragon designs, not as much. Some looked really cute. Others looked plain annoying. Even the Night Fury looked like a Pokémon at times.

This, I believe, could be one of the best animated pictures of the year. That is of course if you could get past the Viking beards looking like Lord of the Rings, or the dragons looking like those flying reptiles from Avatar, or the dragon riding looking like Eragon.

And Gerard Butler, ye dinnae work too hard te heid yir Sco’ish accent. Aye ca’ tell t’was ye tha mooment ye oopened yir mooth.


P.S. This review hyperlinks to all the other 3D reviews to date.


*pic from coronacomingattractions.com


How to Train Your Dragon. USA. 2010.


Rating: Eight and a half out of ten.
3D-ness: Eight and a half out of ten.


Originally published on Da Couch Tomato

UP NUPL Poster

My very first 3D poster.

I designed this for my organization in law school, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers.

Things I failed to achieve here:

• Failed to understand multi-layering in anaglyph poster design. The topmost layer should have no displacement, while the bottommost layer should have the greatest displacement. Here it’s the opposite; the bottommost layer has no displacement, while the topmost layer has the greatest displacement.That also goes for the text within the picture frame.
• Failed to put more background, especially against the title text. Text cannot “pop out” if there’s nothing behind it to pop out against, innit?

All in all, I would say, not bad for a first attempt.

Alice in Wonderland. 3D

By now, you will have noticed my obsession with 3D films. Well, let’s not call it an “obsession”, but rather, a “devotion” to what I consider the medium of the future.

As such, the first part of this review shall be devoted to its 3D-ness, while the second part will be the regular review.

First, I didn’t like its 3D-ness. When I was in the theater, I could really sense something was amiss. This wasn’t like Avatar.

So when I got home, I researched on it, and confirmed my suspicion: This film was shot in conventional 2D, with the footage converted to 3D in post-production. James Cameron, in all his Avatar arrogance, criticized this, saying that “It doesn’t make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D.” Tim Burton felt, however, that 3D cameras were too bulky and expensive, and that there was really no difference between converted 3D and those originally shot with 3D cameras. Well, maybe to regular moviegoers there isn’t; but Mr. Burton, there is a difference, because I felt it.

Okay, how did I feel it? I could feel it in the depth of the shots. There was just not enough depth.

And now I consider myself a certified 3D addict. You know you’re a 3D addict when you can detect the difference between converted 3D and original 3D footage.

And now, on to the regular review.

This version is based on, but is definitely not, the original Lewis Carroll books of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Those stories were more of a stream-of-consciousness hallucination all throughout. In this version, however, screenwriter Linda Woolverton attempted to put a narrative structure to it, and so it ended up as a retelling (which Tim Burton would vehemently deny). It worked, I must say. But I sort of liked the hallucinatory quality of the Lewis Carroll version.

The first part starts off in Victorian England. And for a moment there, I forgot that this was a Tim Burton film. I can’t really imagine Tim Burton directing Sense and Sensibility. It only becomes Burton-esque once Alice enters Wonderland.

Among all the countless visual adaptations of Lewis Carroll’s beloved tale, this version, I believe, is the one that truly puts the “mad” in “Mad Hatter”. And we can thank Johnny Depp for that. His Hatter was bonkers. Like totally. And even the March Hare was cuckoo.

Helena Bonham Carter, a.k.a. Mrs. Tim Burton, was perfect as the Red Queen. Plus I loved how Burton made her head bigger. Bonham Carter brought a new edge to the Red Queen. Tyranny with insanity.

Anne Hathaway, I now have no doubt about your acting skills. Yeah, she was really great in Rachel Getting Married. But as the White Queen, you could see that she can take any role given to her, and execute it with style. And I now officially have a crush on Anne Hathaway because of her acting prowess.

Mia Wasikowska, I admit that I thought you wouldn’t be able to pull this off. But surprisingly, you did. Good job. But you’re still not as pretty as I thought you would be.

Crispin Glover, I don’t even have to say anything. You are one talented actor. You may not be mainstream enough, but all your fans since Back to the Future know that you are one talented actor. I think I already said that.

And Alan Rickman, I’d know your Severus Snape voice anywhere. But I’ve nothing against you, as I like you as an actor.

The Cheshire Cat was the best portrayal of the Cheshire Cat I’ve ever seen, floating around like a ghost, disappearing in a puff of smoke. I can’t help but compare this to the animated Disney version, where the cat was more of an annoyance that didn’t really help propel the story forward. Oh, wait. The original didn’t really have a story. Oh well. The only thing I didn’t like was when they addressed the Cheshire Cat as “Ches”. Please stop Americanizing Lewis Carroll’s creations. Thank you.

And finally, great character design for the Jabberwocky. I think this design was lifted straight out of Sir John Tenniel’s illustration. But why oh why did Mr. Burton decide to use Christopher Lee to voice this monster? Again, my only explanation: to milk Mr. Lee for all the movies he can make, before he snuffs it. Sorry if I sound so mean.

Anyway, I’ve learned a valuable lesson with this movie, one that could save me a lot of money. And that is: Never watch a 3D film that wasn’t shot on 3D cameras. If it was just converted 3D footage, just watch it in regular cinemas. You should be paying for the 3D experience, not the conversion.


*some info from IMDb and Wikipedia
pic from iconvsicon.com


Alice in Wonderland. USA. 2010.


Rating: Eight out of ten.
3D-ness: Five out of ten.


Originally published in Da Couch Tomato

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. 3D

Okay, let’s get this straight first. This film is for kids. If you’re an adult expecting a Pixar film, you’re not going to get it here.

That said, I shall just turn this into an analysis of the 3D medium. Hopefully, my (still limited) 3D knowledge can be put to use for Philippine cinema.

1. 3D is best viewed up close. The closer you are to the screen, the better the 3D experience. This is because of our field of vision. When you sit on the upper part of the theater, farther away from the screen, the theater’s side walls will be included in your field of vision. Viewers of course don’t want that. That’s why the best way to view 3D is on IMAX 3D. The screen will just swallow you whole.

2. 3D directors, and cinematographers especially, should always remember to use deep focus lenses. The rack focus technique, or shifting focus from foreground to background, is a useful technique only for traditional 2D cinema. This is because this camera technique works by trying to simulate how the human eye focuses on objects. 3D cinema, on the other hand, works by simulating reality. Everything should be in focus. Then it is the viewer’s eye that chooses which element to focus on, leaving the other elements out of focus. All the focusing should happen in the viewer’s eyes, not in the camera.

3. There should be a rule, like for every 3D movie you watch, you have to watch five 2D films after it. This is because you will get accustomed to the look of 3D. The magic will be gone. So if you want to keep giggling like a child when wearing your 3D glasses, do not saturate yourself with 3D. Of course, that’s just me. But I’m mostly always right.

Okay, maybe some of you will not appreciate the information I just shared, so before I end, I’ll just give my traditional-style review.

Character designs were okay. I especially liked the design for Tim Lockwood. He reminded me of Sully from Sesame Street ─ all eyebrows, no eyes. And I also loved the design for Manny, the cameraman slash Guatemalan doctor. Benjamin Bratt did a great job with the voice. Of course, how hard can it be for a Latino actor to do a Latino accent?

Hearing Mr. T’s voice was refreshing. Maybe warming us up for the upcoming A-Team film.

Neil Patrick Harris, you were reduced to a monkey. That’s sad. But it shows that you’re a team player. Well done.

Baby Brent, who later became Chicken Brent, is possibly the most annoying movie character since Jar-Jar Binks.

James Caan, I didn’t know you were the voice for Flint Lockwood. You had an Italian accent. And they said in The Sopranos that you weren’t Italian.

Apparently, this was based on a book. Well, I’ve never read the book. So there.

Again, typical adults will definitely get bored with this film, so if you’re not watching this with your kids, watch it in 3D. At least you won’t sleep through it.


*some info from IMDb
pic from extremitiesspeak.wordpress.com


Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. USA. 2009.


Rating: Six out of ten.
3D-ness: Seven out of ten.


Originally published in Da Couch Tomato

Avatar. 3D

Like I said before, 3D will be cinema’s weapon against the imminent threat posed by pirated home viewing. But I shall write on that separately.

This is a great film for three reasons.

1. James Cameron is a great visual storyteller. You have to admit that, even if you didn’t like Titanic. He’s also an auteur, as he single-handedly wrote the screenplay. There are some weaknesses in the way he reveals information and back stories, but those instances are negligible compared to the two and a half-hour running time. The guy has range, like Danny Boyle (although Danny Boyle is technically not an auteur). Range means he can tell stories in any film genre. Not like a certain director of robots in disguise.

2. This is James Cameron’s first feature film after Titanic, and he could only have gotten better after that hiatus. Of course he didn’t spend those years idly. He’s been hiding in a secret underground base, developing a super-secret digital 3D camera, which he will use to take over the world. Apparently the story of Avatar was conceived a little after Titanic broke box-office records, but has remained shelved because Cameron was waiting for the proper technology to come into fruition. And that is the same thing I would’ve done. “If you’re going to do something, do it well, or don’t do it at all.” (I don’t know who originally said that. Probably me.)

3. This film utilized technology co-developed by Cameron himself. You have to admire James Cameron for following the same path walked by Orson Welles, George Lucas, and Peter Jackson: If the technology does not exist, create it. What makes this film worth watching in 3D is that Cameron intended from the onset that this will primarily be a 3D release, with the 2D release being only secondary. What is great about films originally intended for 3D (like U2 3D) is that the shots are composed to provide maximum depth. This would actually be a good starter for people who have never seen a 3D film before.

And now to the nitty-gritty.

James Cameron, I’ve already praised you enough. Next.

James Horner, I love your score. I hardly noticed it. And that is the mark of a great musical score.

Sam Worthington, I knew you were good since Terminator: Salvation. I said you could be the next Clive Owen. I think I’m right.

Sigourney Weaver: You. Are. Such. A. Bad. Ass. And I’ve liked you since Ghostbusters.

Giovanni Ribisi, you are good, but your voice is annoying.

And to the rest of the cast, for not being A-listers, you help keep the attention on the story and not on your faces. Nice work.

Oh, and Michelle Rodriguez, I admit I didn’t like you before. Why? Because your acting is always the same. But after seeing Avatar, I thank James Cameron for landing you a role that’s tailor-fit to your natural acting template. And I do hope I still like you in your next movie.


*some info from IMDb and Wikipedia
pic from bscreview.com


Avatar. USA. 2009.


Rating: Eight and a half out of ten.
3D shots: Nine out of ten.


*originally published on Da Couch Tomato