Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 6:36:21 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8043
Joined: 31/7/2008
I agree with the majority of posts in here. If a film has to be seen in 3D to be appreciated and is rubbish without it, then it is a rubbish film. Besides, there would be no DVD's sold of the bloody things.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 31
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 9:19:48 PM   
UTB


Posts: 9551
Joined: 30/9/2005
Here's a question, if a film is shot in 3D and you refuse to view it in anything but 2D, does this mean you aren't watching the film as the director intended?


< Message edited by UTB -- 13/3/2010 9:21:39 PM >

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 32
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 9:29:25 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19037
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Here's a question, if a film is shot in 3D and you refuse to view it in anything but 2D, does this mean you aren't watching the film as the director intended?



Yeah, pretty much. But for many 3D simply isn't an option, and to be honest does watcihing in 3D make the acting any better? The script stronger? It creates an experience, but has yet to demostrate any real artistic merit in of itself.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 33
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 9:32:14 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8043
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Here's a question, if a film is shot in 3D and you refuse to view it in anything but 2D, does this mean you aren't watching the film as the director intended?



Probably, but only insofar as the director will most likely have been hoping that the spangly gee-whizz techno wizardry would distract you from the otherwise mediocre tripe he created.

Avatar is the only film I have seen that I thought merited 3D, because it looks stunning and I thought Cameron used a surprisingly light touch with it. However, having watched it in 2D, I think a lot of people when watching it at home on DVD or whatever are going to realise that it is basically just an overlong derivative cartoon without the 3D 'oh wow' factor. The worry for me is that other films may follow this trend.

< Message edited by superdan -- 13/3/2010 9:34:03 PM >

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 34
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 9:47:46 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54428
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Here's a question, if a film is shot in 3D and you refuse to view it in anything but 2D, does this mean you aren't watching the film as the director intended?



If the director intends me to leave the cinema with a migraine, screw 'im.

Mostly, I think the director just wants me to watch things pointlessly come to front of screen to make the most of the 3D.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 35
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 10:39:58 PM   
Hobbitonlass

 

Posts: 11916
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Westeros
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Mostly, I think the director just wants me to watch things pointlessly come to front of screen to make the most of the 3D.

They're the 3D films that I don't like.   One of the reasons I liked Up was that the 3D was subtle in it and it gave a depth to the film that drew me in (as I said before with Avatar - that's my experience of the film).   I hate films like (and this is probably a really crap example) Final Destination in 3D as it was just the director thinking "I know, I'll just gets loads of body parts flying out to the audience in 3D to really gross them out (not).  In fact I didn't need to watch it in 3D (and didn't) to be able to see the really obvious bits.  Shame as I liked the other FD films.

Okay, I haven't seen Up in 2D but fully expect to enjoy it in this format so was 3D necessary?  I don't know until I have seen it in 2D to be able to comment on my experience. 


_____________________________

Come join in the Photo competition http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=3116407&mpage=1&key=

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 36
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 11:00:46 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

Okay, I haven't seen Up in 2D but fully expect to enjoy it in this format so was 3D necessary?  I don't know until I have seen it in 2D to be able to comment on my experience. 



You mean you haven't re-watched Up again? SHAME.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Hobbitonlass)
Post #: 37
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 13/3/2010 11:10:11 PM   
Indio


Posts: 7205
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: London

As Kermode has said in his book, the studios are all over 3D at the moment as the films are a lot harder to be pirated in the 3D format, I also fail to see the widespread enthusiasm when its comes to 3D films, its a pain in the arse watching a full length film with goggles, and the overall effect isn't really that great - until theres a cheaper implemented glasses free 3D scheme in place I'll either give the films a miss or watch the 2D version instead. I watched the Blu Ray version of Up last week and enjoyed the film for what it was, at no point did I think 'Gee I wish I'd seen this with a pair of cheap glasses on that will give me a headache after half an hour'

_____________________________

'Think about the future.'

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 38
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 6:05:43 AM   
Squidward Hark Bugle


Posts: 9402
Joined: 17/10/2007
From: Laurel Canyon
quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

I agree with the majority of posts in here. If a film has to be seen in 3D to be appreciated and is rubbish without it, then it is a rubbish film. Besides, there would be no DVD's sold of the bloody things.


3D makes all movies worse. Emphasis is taken away from dialogue and story and placed in the visuals, meaning that it is unbalanced. Plus 3D always makes me feel ill.

Avatar in 2D:
Avatar in 3D:


_____________________________

Music is the best.

200 Motels

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 39
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 9:09:02 AM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20116
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Here's a question, if a film is shot in 3D and you refuse to view it in anything but 2D, does this mean you aren't watching the film as the director intended?



If the director intends me to leave the cinema with a migraine, screw 'im.

Mostly, I think the director just wants me to watch things pointlessly come to front of screen to make the most of the 3D.


Or 'er

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 40
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 9:24:44 AM   
DAVID GILLESPIE


Posts: 2888
Joined: 27/2/2007
From: Glasgow
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Does this mean for some people reviewing a film in 2D when there is a 3D option is no longer valid?

Cause that is some BS right there.



yeah, i understand that the 3 d retro fit thing is bit suspect
but i have been checking reviews and opinions that have dismissed films like 'avatar' as deficient and lacking substance in its 2 d version.

but wouldn't their opinions change if they saw them in 3 d?
even kermode thinks the 3 d does bring the 'wow' factor to 'avatar'.




The reviews saying that Avatar lacked substance and was deficient in anything decent in 2D were absolutely bang on. (except action scenes and flying chameleons, and Weaver)

And if the film needs head-on gear to be spectacular then that makes Avatar even worse. A film should be great to watch by itself, without pop-up enchantment and frivolous glasses, if it needs that to be good with those, then it is far worse then I ever imagined. And if we are talking about directors who used 3D, Andre deToth (who was blind from one eye and didn't like the tool)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Cameron, since House of Wax had enough immersion in it to work brilliantly even without some annoying glasses.


If I'm going to be honest, there is only one film I really want to see 3D, it is becuase the gimmick actually like it can do the film favors becuase of its plot and style. This is Tron Legacy.

I agree, I think Tron Legacy will be perfect for 3D.  I also believe that 3D, as per IMAX screens, are a perfect format for the big movie blockbuster that relies on enhanced sound and vision to make up for perhaps the lack of substance and brain matter. The Dark Knight was an exception because it was not a family blockbuster, and had a adult edge. However if there had been a 3D option, I would gladly have watched this version in an IMAX cinema.
I think it is important for the survival of cinema that it explores new (or redesigned) technology and continues to do so. I don't think we should fear 3D taking over every big budget movie release in the forthcoming years unless it continues to make the amount of money that it is at the moment. That won't happen or to the same extent because the 3D novelty will wear off or stabilize when the paying customer gets used to the experience.
I wasn't a massive fan of Avatar but respect its importance in generating a new 'cash cow' for the cinema market. The film won't be remembered but it's role in revitalising the 3D experience will live on in movie history - I think?


_____________________________

Cludge Judge * Cold Fish

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 41
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 9:51:35 AM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
I really find the hatred of 3D a little bewildering. Avatar just touched the surface, there's so much potential, and I'm sure this potential will be further explored throughout the decade.

I don't think it's a gimmick, might have been in the past, but now it's a great tool available for filmmakers to enhance their films, just like CG was in the early 90s.


< Message edited by Tech_Noir -- 14/3/2010 11:18:35 AM >

(in reply to DAVID GILLESPIE)
Post #: 42
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 10:29:36 AM   
Sotto Voce

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 5/9/2009
But just like CG, the novelty of 3D will sometimes be used as a substitute for good writing, acting etc.
Result; fewer good films are made.
Hopefully the novelty wears off soon.


_____________________________

All things digested have a similar hue.

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 43
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 11:10:39 AM   
rancorpuppet

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 3/8/2008
It is a fad or fashion - and the effect of 3-d wears off after watching it for twenty-minutes - fact. That's half the charm of the cinema though, there those if us holed up with our eighteen editions of 'Blade Runner' on blu-ray, poring over every scene - which I'm not averse to - and those of us who enjoy the hokey cinema culture, the legacy of William Castle and of Weslter hotdogs and the whole damn culture. Something a movie reviewer by trade is detached from, by definition.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 44
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 11:11:58 AM   
lbiu


Posts: 2779
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just 3 doors away from Heaven
I just find 3D films annoying. The glasses always irritate my face, when I slightly tilt my head the 3d effect disappears, the 3d effect after a while is just pointless etc....
In all honesty it adds nothing. I am excited that filmakers are thinking of new technology to give movies a more imersive experience but I will only be excited about it when it involves not wearing silly glasses and actually being able to turn your head and still see the images all around you.

_____________________________

My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

(in reply to Sotto Voce)
Post #: 45
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 11:19:35 AM   
Biggus


Posts: 7631
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: Not Local
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I really find the hatred of 3D is a little bewildering. Avatar just touched the surface, there's so much potential, and I'm sure this potential will be further explored throughout the decade.

I don't think it's a gimmick, might have been in the past, but now it's a great tool available for filmmakers to enhance their films, just like CG was in the early 90s.



Except it doesn't enhance the films. It enhances the box office. The irony with Avatar is that the new technology which took years to develop in order create an 'immersive experience' and present 3D as a credible filmmaking tool to push the medium further has just proved that a) 3D doesn't actually add anything to the quality of the film itself and b) secured 3D as the gimmick of choice for the next few years due to the inflated ticket prices (another ridiculous facet of this fad).

If the film is good enough then immersion in that universe is there in spades i.e Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings. I've seen Avatar twice, once in 3D and once in 2D and I enjoyed the 2D viewing far more. The 3D was just a distraction and as one poster has already touched upon, cinema is about characters & visual storytelling. 3D does not affect the visual presentation of the film, only the way we receive it.

Avatar was my first 3D cinema experience and will certainly be my last for a while. I remember going to Disneyworld 10 years ago where they had 3D rides and shows and I can honestly say that the 'leap forward' in technology this past decade is little more than a step. Another problem I find with 3D is that no matter how good the technology and camera systems are, you still have to put on a cheap pair of plastic glasses which catch a bit of glare here and there and are just too imperfect to compliment the technology used to shoot the film. Not that I'm suggesting 3D contact lenses of course! I'm all for pushing the boundaries of cinema to see what's possible and in a few years no doubt someone will come along (probably James Cameron) and say they've made another breakthrough stating "The problem with Avatar was..." etc. and I'll certainly give it another whirl but as for this latest resurgence of the 3D phenomena, count me out.

< Message edited by Biggus -- 26/3/2010 9:28:56 PM >


_____________________________

"They offered me a hundred grand. You wanna know something? When I found out I'd get my hands on you, I said I'd do it for nothing."

http://fletchsworldoffilm.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 46
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 11:31:50 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8043
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I really find the hatred of 3D a little bewildering. Avatar just touched the surface, there's so much potential, and I'm sure this potential will be further explored throughout the decade.

I don't think it's a gimmick, might have been in the past, but now it's a great tool available for filmmakers to enhance their films, just like CG was in the early 90s.



See, I find this a little naive. 3D does not enhance a film for me (if anything, it takes me out of the film as I'm constantly distracted by shit 'floating' in front of me) and for a filmaker it's just a new toy. The only types of films that I can think of that might truly benefit from 3D (since narrative and script are somewhat secondary anyway) are horror and porn films.

The main reason 3D is being rammed down our throats is because it allows the companies to make more money, both in limiting piracy and inflating ticket prices.  

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 47
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 11:33:19 AM   
Neth


Posts: 4750
Joined: 3/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I don't think it's a gimmick, might have been in the past, but now it's a great tool available for filmmakers to enhance their films, just like CG was in the early 90s.




Yeah, and look how that turned out:




_____________________________

"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."


(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 48
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 1:04:48 PM   
genejoke


Posts: 1783
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: bournemouth
New technology that may change the film industry (or not) run hide for it is evil.

Until seeing avatar I was dubious, Avatar made me think that maybe there is something to it affter all. then I saw Alice in wonderland in 3d and thought what was the point of the 3D in that.

(in reply to Neth)
Post #: 49
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 1:47:13 PM   
Drone


Posts: 964
Joined: 30/9/2005
If they showed a 3D movie up in Mark Kermode's a$$hole, he'd see it, as that's where his head is 99% of the time nowadays anyway.  He used to have a pretty solid opinion; however, since he's clearly gotten wind of adoration from so called "real film fans" everywhere, he's turned into another 'fight the soulless, Hollywood dollar producing machine' moron.

Mark Kermode, ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Time to get a new schtick, "Modey", pretentious reviewers are a pound penny.  Still, so long as he has the wannabes lapping him up and defending him to the hilt in the hope of scraping some respect from their "peers" as an educated cinephile, his career will stumble along.



(in reply to genejoke)
Post #: 50
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 1:52:32 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54428
Joined: 1/10/2005
Are you basing that on his reviews or what you think his reviews are? If you'd read the thread you'd already have seen reference to his pro-reviews for HSM 3 and Twilight. DVD's today it was Zombieland.

All of which rather undercuts the absolutism of your argument?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Drone)
Post #: 51
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 1:55:17 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Drone, do you ever say anything of value?


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Drone)
Post #: 52
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 3:24:13 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4190
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drone

If they showed a 3D movie up in Mark Kermode's a$$hole, he'd see it, as that's where his head is 99% of the time nowadays anyway.  He used to have a pretty solid opinion; however, since he's clearly gotten wind of adoration from so called "real film fans" everywhere, he's turned into another 'fight the soulless, Hollywood dollar producing machine' moron.

Mark Kermode, ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Time to get a new schtick, "Modey", pretentious reviewers are a pound penny.  Still, so long as he has the wannabes lapping him up and defending him to the hilt in the hope of scraping some respect from their "peers" as an educated cinephile, his career will stumble along.


I don't always agree with Kermode but this is childish, unmitigated horse-shit.


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Drone)
Post #: 53
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 3:34:25 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19037
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
It is just Drone - I don't think the guy has ever made a positive post on here about anything. And its nonesense.

Again, unlike 3D, people were not being asked to shell out more money to watch movies with CGI. Its a money maker pure and simple. It was the studio heads which were pushing this, and not because of artisic merit. Lets put it like this - I don't there will ever be a day when the Oscars will have a "Best 3D" award.

Sadly, with the number of cinemas now converting to 3D I am afraid that the format is here to stay, but frankly with one or two exceptions (Tron 2) I will be sticking with good old 2D and paying lower prices. I have now need to see Clash of the Titans in a 3D format, espcially as it was designed for such a thing. Same goes for Whedons Cabin in the Woods.

< Message edited by Rgirvan44 -- 14/3/2010 3:35:16 PM >


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 54
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 3:55:54 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Even if it was designed for 3D, I still wouldn't go and se ite, if it is good then it will also be good in 2D. 

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 55
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 4:12:36 PM   
tommyjarvis


Posts: 6632
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Caught somewhere in time
Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D

If worked well for trashy horror films like that, Final Destination 4, My Bloody Valentine or Jaws 3, it can be a hell of fun. Whether it actually makes the film any better is a separate issue, but I don't really care about that.

_____________________________

"I've been too honest with myself, I should have lied like everybody else"

My Top 101 Rock Songs - The first Audiophile list to actually get completed!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 56
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 4:32:01 PM   
max314


Posts: 2707
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
Kermode's idol, William Friedkin, has publicly stated his disdain for the medium of 3-D.

So even though Kermode went gaga over Avatar's use of 3-D, expect him to gradually phase that out of public memory as he gradually falls in line with the man who defined the meaning of his life. Not including Elvis.

_____________________________

MAX

Laying the 314 on your candy ass.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 57
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 4:37:35 PM   
Sexual Harassment Panda


Posts: 13261
Joined: 30/9/2005
Was Avatar actually impressive in 3D, I don't remember thinking wow the 3D looks good in this, and the same applies to all 3D movies I've seen, I don't think the technology is good enough yet.

_____________________________

Ole Gunnar Solskj�r - 1996-2007

Member of the MW2 Star 69 Club
Member of the CoD4 Mile High Club

(in reply to max314)
Post #: 58
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 4:41:02 PM   
lbiu


Posts: 2779
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just 3 doors away from Heaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: tommyjarvis

Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D

If worked well for trashy horror films like that, Final Destination 4, My Bloody Valentine or Jaws 3, it can be a hell of fun. Whether it actually makes the film any better is a separate issue, but I don't really care about that.


I actually think it did the opposite particularly FD4. Final Destination series was not that bad in a b-movie sense but the last one was awful and I think a lot of that had to do with the 3d. It seems like they just did not even try to be smart and just relied on poking objects at the screen every 5 minutes.

3D is a gimmick no matter what way you spin it. I will see Toy Story 3 but honestly could not care less if it was in 3D or not. Clash I will probably skip...Tron is the only film where I think 3D actually will suit and possibly add to the action but it wont make the film better or worse. The ticket price is also just unreasonable...there is ust no reason to be adding £2-£4 on a ticket price just because of some cheap glasses.

_____________________________

My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

(in reply to tommyjarvis)
Post #: 59
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 14/3/2010 4:44:34 PM   
Neth


Posts: 4750
Joined: 3/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: max314

So even though Kermode went gaga over Avatar's use of 3-D, expect him to gradually phase that out of public memory as he gradually falls in line with the man who defined the meaning of his life.



Wait - when did that happen? Didn't he describe the movie's 3D as being "flimflam" and stated that it made no real difference when he removed his glasses mid-movie?


_____________________________

"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."


(in reply to max314)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109