Goodbye Shrek !

Loosely based upon a story by children’s author William Steig (Sylvester and the Magic Pebble), Shrek is a satiric fairy-tale love story which has been genuinely funny and entertaining since its inception. Having watched all the previous three movies of this franchise multiple times, I must admit I was quite looking forward to the final chapter and hoping that the beloved ogre leaves us on a high note. And he does. Heartfelt and hilarious, this sequel is inspired heavily from Capra’s “Its a Wonderful Life”.

The film starts brilliantly by showing a montage of Shrek’s life replete with three squalling and rambunctious li’l ogres, a loving wife Fiona and a great friend Donkey. In short, a perfect but boring life. And of course Shrek hates it like any other man going through a mid-life crisis! The images are then shown in rapid succession where every passing day is worse than the previous day, until one day Shrek finally throws a royal fit on one of the kid’s birthday and wishes aloud that things could go back to what they were before he had ever met Fiona! As they say, you never know how good things are until they are gone!

Enter the sleazy snarky villain Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn), the famous trickster from Brothers Grimm fairy tales. The vengeful devil with ridiculous spiky red hair and predatory eyes convinces the naive ogre to sign away any one day of his childhood. In return, Shrek gets to live one day of his life the way he would have liked; a life of no responsibilites, a life where he can make mud angels till the cows came home, a life where the villagers are still scared of his mighty roar! And, of course the evil guy chooses the day Shrek was born. What follows then is life in an alternate universe where Rumpelstiltskin is the ruler of the kingdom and witches rule the roost! Shrek has never met Fiona and his friends Donkey and Puss don’t recognize him. But of course, there is a way to fix all things! Shrek discovers that a “true love’s kiss” is the only way to undo the contract, but can he do it by the end of the day?

This story is by far the most interesting of all. It doesn’t rely on gimmicks and pop culture references throughout like the first one. The wit and the humor is quite fast-paced. The characters are very engaging and the voices are as sharp and funny as ever. Shrek (Mike Myers) as always is the endearing slob that we all have grown to love and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) is the warrior ogre-princess who is a tough nut to crack. She doesn’t wait to be rescued in this one, she rescues herself, quite a nice change from the usual !! Both of them bring immense warmth to their characters. Donkey (Eddy Murphy) is still as howlarious and cheeky as ever, and Puss (Antonio Bendares) is a pampered house cat now who is too fat to fit in his boots! He still uses his big sad eyes expression eliciting a major awwww in the theater !!

I’m not sure if the 3D animation really added to the overall experience of the movie. For the most part, I found the glasses annoying and would have preferred watching the sharper, crisper colors without the 3D effect.

After having gone horribly wrong with Shrek The Third, the makers went back to telling a simple story with its heart in the right place. And they score with this one. If this really is the final chapter of this terrific franchise, I for one am quite sad to bid goodbye to beloved ogre!

Goodbye Shrek !

Loosely based upon a story by children’s author William Steig (Sylvester and the Magic Pebble), Shrek is a satiric fairy-tale love story which has been genuinely funny and entertaining since its inception. Having watched all the previous three movies of this franchise multiple times, I must admit I was quite looking forward to the final chapter and hoping that the beloved ogre leaves us on a high note. And he does. Heartfelt and hilarious, this sequel is inspired heavily from Capra’s “Its a Wonderful Life”.

The film starts brilliantly by showing a montage of Shrek’s life replete with three squalling and rambunctious li’l ogres, a loving wife Fiona and a great friend Donkey. In short, a perfect but boring life. And of course Shrek hates it like any other man going through a mid-life crisis! The images are then shown in rapid succession where every passing day is worse than the previous day, until one day Shrek finally throws a royal fit on one of the kid’s birthday and wishes aloud that things could go back to what they were before he had ever met Fiona! As they say, you never know how good things are until they are gone!

Enter the sleazy snarky villain Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn), the famous trickster from Brothers Grimm fairy tales. The vengeful devil with ridiculous spiky red hair and predatory eyes convinces the naive ogre to sign away any one day of his childhood. In return, Shrek gets to live one day of his life the way he would have liked; a life of no responsibilites, a life where he can make mud angels till the cows came home, a life where the villagers are still scared of his mighty roar! And, of course the evil guy chooses the day Shrek was born. What follows then is life in an alternate universe where Rumpelstiltskin is the ruler of the kingdom and witches rule the roost! Shrek has never met Fiona and his friends Donkey and Puss don’t recognize him. But of course, there is a way to fix all things! Shrek discovers that a “true love’s kiss” is the only way to undo the contract, but can he do it by the end of the day?

This story is by far the most interesting of all. It doesn’t rely on gimmicks and pop culture references throughout like the first one. The wit and the humor is quite fast-paced. The characters are very engaging and the voices are as sharp and funny as ever. Shrek (Mike Myers) as always is the endearing slob that we all have grown to love and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) is the warrior ogre-princess who is a tough nut to crack. She doesn’t wait to be rescued in this one, she rescues herself, quite a nice change from the usual !! Both of them bring immense warmth to their characters. Donkey (Eddy Murphy) is still as howlarious and cheeky as ever, and Puss (Antonio Bendares) is a pampered house cat now who is too fat to fit in his boots! He still uses his big sad eyes expression eliciting a major awwww in the theater !!

I’m not sure if the 3D animation really added to the overall experience of the movie. For the most part, I found the glasses annoying and would have preferred watching the sharper, crisper colors without the 3D effect.

After having gone horribly wrong with Shrek The Third, the makers went back to telling a simple story with its heart in the right place. And they score with this one. If this really is the final chapter of this terrific franchise, I for one am quite sad to bid goodbye to beloved ogre!

Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too) - Roger Ebert

I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life.

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case, point by point:

1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, "Look how slowly he grows against the horizon" or "I wish this were 3D?"

 Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they "need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn't. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don't believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. "There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally," said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and "that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache." Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. "When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are." In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don't know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it's the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don't mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or "fake IMAX" for original IMAX. What's the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don't show a movie in 3-D, they can't have it in 2-D. Although there's room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?

Read more HERE.

Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too) - Roger Ebert

I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life.

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case, point by point:

1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, "Look how slowly he grows against the horizon" or "I wish this were 3D?"

 Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they "need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn't. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don't believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. "There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally," said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and "that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache." Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. "When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are." In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don't know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it's the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don't mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or "fake IMAX" for original IMAX. What's the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don't show a movie in 3-D, they can't have it in 2-D. Although there's room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?

Read more HERE.

Tim Burton Directing a Stop-Motion Addams Family Movie

Remaining firmly in his comfort zone, Tim Burton has signed on to helm a stop-motion animation adaptation of The Addams Family. Deadline reports that Illumination Entertainment, the Universal family-film based unit, has acquired the underlying rights of the Addams drawings, once a staple of The New Yorker magazine. “His intention is to go back to the litany of Addams illustrations that displayed a sharper wit than could be place into a 60s family TV series,” says Deadline. Oh, and the film will be in 3D because 3D is better for some arbitrary reason.

Some people don’t know that Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas was not directed by Burton, but by Henry Selick (Coraline). However, Burton did direct the forgettable Corpse Bride.

Until Burton decides to do a movie that people wouldn’t expect from him, I’m going to put the College Humor video mocking him after the jump. Enjoy! Also, if you are someone who has never heard of The Addams Family (all three of you), I’ve included a brief description of them after the jump.


The Addams Family originated as a New Yorker illustrated laughing square. They were then adapted into a 60s horror-comedy show. In the 90s, they made their feature film debut with The Addams Family in 1991 and Adams Family Values in 1993. The films starred Raul Julia, Anjelica Huston, Christopher Lloyd, and Christina Ricci and were directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (Men in Black).

How best to describe them? Well, they’re creepy and their kooky, and all-together ookie.

LINK

Tim Burton Directing a Stop-Motion Addams Family Movie

Remaining firmly in his comfort zone, Tim Burton has signed on to helm a stop-motion animation adaptation of The Addams Family. Deadline reports that Illumination Entertainment, the Universal family-film based unit, has acquired the underlying rights of the Addams drawings, once a staple of The New Yorker magazine. “His intention is to go back to the litany of Addams illustrations that displayed a sharper wit than could be place into a 60s family TV series,” says Deadline. Oh, and the film will be in 3D because 3D is better for some arbitrary reason.

Some people don’t know that Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas was not directed by Burton, but by Henry Selick (Coraline). However, Burton did direct the forgettable Corpse Bride.

Until Burton decides to do a movie that people wouldn’t expect from him, I’m going to put the College Humor video mocking him after the jump. Enjoy! Also, if you are someone who has never heard of The Addams Family (all three of you), I’ve included a brief description of them after the jump.


The Addams Family originated as a New Yorker illustrated laughing square. They were then adapted into a 60s horror-comedy show. In the 90s, they made their feature film debut with The Addams Family in 1991 and Adams Family Values in 1993. The films starred Raul Julia, Anjelica Huston, Christopher Lloyd, and Christina Ricci and were directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (Men in Black).

How best to describe them? Well, they’re creepy and their kooky, and all-together ookie.

LINK

Cameron to make Titanic in 3D

It'll be the 100th anniversary of the sailing of the ship

Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron has confirmed that he'll bring the 3D version of Titanic on the big screen by 2012.
"We're targeting spring of 2012 for the release (of a 3D version of Titanic), which is the 100th anniversary of the sailing of the ship," contactmusic.com quoted him as saying.
The movie was released in 1997.
Cameron also revealed that he would put his latest epic film Avatar back into movie theatres by releasing a director's cut later this year.
"The wild card is that we might be re-releasing the movie this fall. It's kind of gotten stomped out (in theatres since the release) of Alice in Wonderland. The word we're getting back from exhibitors is we probably left a couple of hundred million dollars on the table as a result," he said.
"The question is (that) the appetite (is) still going to be there after the summer glut of movies. We're going to assess that. We're talking about may be adding in additional footage and doing something creative," he added.

http://movies.ibnlive.in.com/news/movies/cameron-to-make-titanic-in-3d-by-2012/184769/0

Cameron to make Titanic in 3D

It'll be the 100th anniversary of the sailing of the ship

Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron has confirmed that he'll bring the 3D version of Titanic on the big screen by 2012.
"We're targeting spring of 2012 for the release (of a 3D version of Titanic), which is the 100th anniversary of the sailing of the ship," contactmusic.com quoted him as saying.
The movie was released in 1997.
Cameron also revealed that he would put his latest epic film Avatar back into movie theatres by releasing a director's cut later this year.
"The wild card is that we might be re-releasing the movie this fall. It's kind of gotten stomped out (in theatres since the release) of Alice in Wonderland. The word we're getting back from exhibitors is we probably left a couple of hundred million dollars on the table as a result," he said.
"The question is (that) the appetite (is) still going to be there after the summer glut of movies. We're going to assess that. We're talking about may be adding in additional footage and doing something creative," he added.

http://movies.ibnlive.in.com/news/movies/cameron-to-make-titanic-in-3d-by-2012/184769/0

IPL set for 3D debut

Call it the Avatar effect, the Indian premier League will make its 3D debut in select theatres this season. “We are going 3D... and we’ll be the irst sporting body in the world to do so,” Lalit Modi, commisioner of IPL, told ET. UFO Moviez, the official theatre rights-holder for the Twenty20 tournament, is working on showing the semifinals and final live in 3D. It will be available in cinemas, pubs, bars, and in due time, TV too, Mr Modi said in an exclusive interview. Excerpts:

How do you evaluate this year’s auction?

It went quite well and the results were by and large along the expected lines. But bid for some of the players did surprise me.

A lot of Australian players as well the entire Pakistan list failed to attract any bids. Do you think cricket boards need to be more open with their windows in terms of giving them access during the IPL?

I think this is a central issue that has cropped up across all franchisees. It’s a two-year old tournament, and franchisees are gradually learning that availability of the players is a key factor. They are ready to pay a good price if the players are available.

Have you noticed any difference in the buying trends of the franchisees over the years?

There has been a big difference. Earlier, everyone was going only for big names as they wanted star value in the team. Now, they know that winning is the most important thing. So, its important for them to have a cohesive team. They need to have all types of players in the team and they are realising it now. So, now they are ready to sacrifice big names.

What’s your favourite team in terms of the most wise buy?

I think Vijay Mallya did very well today. He managed to get the under-19 captain of India. It’s a good pick.

Did IPL make significant money today?

IPL has been consistently subsidising players. For us, it’s not the point of making money. It does not make any difference to us one way or the other. The issue is we wanted to have a system in place that could help break a tie... it’s (tie) probably never going to happen ever again.

We looked at all the leagues and other mechanism around the world and found that we’re fair.

IPL is coming back to India. I think you have done a wonderful job of enhancing the brand image of IPL. Will there be any surprise this time?

I will break the news here. We are going 3D... and we’ll be the first sporting body in the world to do so. I have seen the presentation, it’s very expensive but from next year onwards, we hope that we’ll be able to make it available for all games. This year we’re experimenting with four games—last four games will be 3D. It’s a major innovation, it will be available in cinemas, pubs and bars. We also want to introduce the spider cam wherein the camera actually moves across the ground like a spider web. Again it’s a hitech thing and we will be introducing it for the last four games. The IPL is here to build a brand and build on the consumer experience. Our job is to enhance the viewing features of the fans at home and in the stadium.

LINK

IPL set for 3D debut

Call it the Avatar effect, the Indian premier League will make its 3D debut in select theatres this season. “We are going 3D... and we’ll be the irst sporting body in the world to do so,” Lalit Modi, commisioner of IPL, told ET. UFO Moviez, the official theatre rights-holder for the Twenty20 tournament, is working on showing the semifinals and final live in 3D. It will be available in cinemas, pubs, bars, and in due time, TV too, Mr Modi said in an exclusive interview. Excerpts:

How do you evaluate this year’s auction?

It went quite well and the results were by and large along the expected lines. But bid for some of the players did surprise me.

A lot of Australian players as well the entire Pakistan list failed to attract any bids. Do you think cricket boards need to be more open with their windows in terms of giving them access during the IPL?

I think this is a central issue that has cropped up across all franchisees. It’s a two-year old tournament, and franchisees are gradually learning that availability of the players is a key factor. They are ready to pay a good price if the players are available.

Have you noticed any difference in the buying trends of the franchisees over the years?

There has been a big difference. Earlier, everyone was going only for big names as they wanted star value in the team. Now, they know that winning is the most important thing. So, its important for them to have a cohesive team. They need to have all types of players in the team and they are realising it now. So, now they are ready to sacrifice big names.

What’s your favourite team in terms of the most wise buy?

I think Vijay Mallya did very well today. He managed to get the under-19 captain of India. It’s a good pick.

Did IPL make significant money today?

IPL has been consistently subsidising players. For us, it’s not the point of making money. It does not make any difference to us one way or the other. The issue is we wanted to have a system in place that could help break a tie... it’s (tie) probably never going to happen ever again.

We looked at all the leagues and other mechanism around the world and found that we’re fair.

IPL is coming back to India. I think you have done a wonderful job of enhancing the brand image of IPL. Will there be any surprise this time?

I will break the news here. We are going 3D... and we’ll be the first sporting body in the world to do so. I have seen the presentation, it’s very expensive but from next year onwards, we hope that we’ll be able to make it available for all games. This year we’re experimenting with four games—last four games will be 3D. It’s a major innovation, it will be available in cinemas, pubs and bars. We also want to introduce the spider cam wherein the camera actually moves across the ground like a spider web. Again it’s a hitech thing and we will be introducing it for the last four games. The IPL is here to build a brand and build on the consumer experience. Our job is to enhance the viewing features of the fans at home and in the stadium.

LINK