Hi all
I've obviously missed something in it -- seems most people like it
Oh well never mind.
I tried Final Destination 2 in 3-D -- the 3-D is certainly a new experience -- now as soon as I can get my hands on one of those new fangled 3-D TV's -- but imagine the horror of having to put up with hours of Macdonalds commercials in glorious technicolor AND 3-D.
Cheers
jimbo
Apparently our cinemas dont have the 3D capabilitiesbut i will go and see it regardless
Suppose thats what you get for living at the bottom of the world
I Thought we did have as there has been other ones where you wore silly cardboard glasses
But this is what they stated on TV in the reviews of the movie
Unless it is a different newer 3D technology that we are not equipped for
I think 84 is about right because I told someone the other day 8 1/2 out of 10.
Mainly because it was way too rushed and mushed in the final sequences. Yes I know a movie way over 2 and a half hours--but somehow it seemed to have needed perhaps another 20 to 30 minutes.
Technology 9.5 out of 10. Imagination-scenery 10/10 imagination for story--wow it borrowed from literally dozens of movies--6.5 of 10 and clarity pace and editing 8.5 of 10. And, wow, that's an avg of 8.5.
You are not the only one
I watched it in 3d.
Yeah, nice graphics nice effects and so on.
But it wasn't something like wow.
The film was only worth watching for 3d effect and special effects.
But I didn't like it's storyline.
I think it was primitive and old idea.
But anyway, tastes different
And I suppose I am just too critic.
The last time I saw a 3D movie was about 50 years ago. You had to wear the glasses with one green lens and one red lens. Did Avatar require glasses?You are not the only one
I watched it in 3d.
Yeah, nice graphics nice effects and so on.
But it wasn't something like wow.
The film was only worth watching for 3d effect and special effects.
But I didn't like it's storyline.
I think it was primitive and old idea.
But anyway, tastes different
And I suppose I am just too critic.
Quote
