Having worked with Tim Burton in 'The Corpse Bride' and being storyboard supervisor for 'Coraline', Chris Butler is now the proud father of 'ParaNorman'. The director and writer for the latest clay animation film promises his audience eye-popping 3D effects. Quite a bold move for the first time director, and that too for only the second ever stop-motion film to be made in 3D after Coraline. So.. does ParaNorman make our eyes pop? Read on to find out. Full scream ahead!
Suited for 3D? (what does this mean?)
Based on the movie trailer alone, I was quick to think that this movie had potential for 3D. The plot had some basis for the use of 3D to enhance the audience's visual experience. Imagine ghouls and ghosts flying around. After watching the movie, I change my mind. The setting and action sequences just didn't scream for 3D.
Score: 3/5
Filmed for 3D? (what does this mean?)
Although the intention of the filmmakers were made clear in their movie posters, I don't think there was enough planning that went into making this film in 3D. I am sure the filmmakers did put a lot of thought into the 3D. The problem arises when the audience feels that they can watch the movie in 2D without any loss in their movie experience. This is how I felt. Perhaps more could have been done to make the scarce scenes that were distinctly relevant for 3D, look better.
Score: 3/5
Closed Window Experience (what does this mean?)
The problem faced in making films like ParaNorman in 3D, is adding depth to a movie that already seems to have depth. Let me try to explain this. Stop-motion films (e.g. The Corpse Bride, Chicken Run etc.) and 3D-CGI films (e.g. Finding Nemo, Toy Story etc.) give the illusion of depth even when featured in 2D. These kind of movies boast a 3D looking world in 2D films. Compare this with 2D animation shows (e.g. The Simpsons) and you've got the idea. The 3D effects in ParaNorman definitely added depth to the movie. However, in some cases it felt negligible.
Score: 4/5
Open Window Experience (what does this mean?)
This was a great disappointment for me after being sold to the promise of "eye-popping 3D." Maybe it just meant that the audience had to strain their eyes to look for objects popping out of the screen. There were a few instances of objects or creatures coming toward the screen, but nothing that really burst through. The open window experience could have been greatly exploited on numerous occasions. But these were spared for our imagination.
Score: 2/5
The Naked Eye Test (what does this mean?)
When I removed my 3D glasses on numerous occasions, I felt cheated to see a handful of scenes that looked no different from having the 3D glasses on, other than being brighter. Which brings me to my next issue, brightness. I thought this problem was extinct. When watching 3D movies, we are essentially wearing shades (3D glasses) in a dark theatre. So the brightness has to make up for this. ParaNorman was unpleasantly dark. I can't be sure if this was the filmmakers fault or the fault of the movie projection team in the theatre. So no penalty for brightness.
Score: 3/5
Total Score: 15/25
0 - 14
|
Wise man once said… DON’T DO IT!
|
15-19
|
If you have extra cash to blow… sure
|
20-25
|
You have my Blessings!
|
Final Verdict
The 3D in this movie was good, not great. But this does not cut it for a movie that contains characters, objects, and a world that looks three dimensional even in 2D. I know it's confusing, but I truly hope you understand my point and why I seem a little harsh in my review. Anyway, as I have said, the 3D for this movie was ever present and good. But I urge you not to be mindless zombies. Ask yourself if you are willing to risk being haunted by the thought that you should have watched this movie in 2D.
Enough from me! Would YOU recommend watching this movie in 3D?
No comments:
Post a Comment