RichC2

Collet-Serra has come a long way since House of Wax and Orphan. If nothing else he seems like a solid gun for hire for this kinda flick.

mwbmis

That's kind of where the movie lost me. Of course, while he has the aforementioned good banter and acting chemistry with other leading ladies, I can't think of a single performance where the Rock had romantic chemistry. He's done a decent job of just avoiding it, but it was a not insignificant part of this movie's CGI third act.

d2cheer

My wife is a pretty big Dwayne Johnson fan and was mildly interested in seeing this. We went due to some other plans that got messed up. What was the CGI budget? Like $2? Some of the worst CGI in a major release I have ever seen. I liked that it was throwback adventure movie but the movie itself was terrible. I was bored and couldn't wait for it to be over so I could get a beer.


Wait to see at home cheaper. I don't think I need to dump on it more.

RichC2

You saw it at a theater that doesn't serve beer? That was probably half your problem

I wound up enjoying this a lot. The CG-gasm finale was unnecessary and Meth Damon was a bit much but the pacing and overall adventure was fun. I also saw it on a regular TV so the CG insufficiencies weren't as obvious as I'm sure they were on the big screen.

Eric F

Eh. I was fine with the movie until it started loading on the CG supernatural mambo jumbo. Should have just kept it an old-timey adventure flick and kept the supernatural stuff to a minimum.

d2cheer

My wife kept referring to the guy as "fat Mat Damon". At first she thought it was him.

She was like I didn't know he was in this too!! All excited and man did he gain some weight for the role.

I of course waited a bit to tell her...

OldBoy

This was a lot of fun. A mindless barrel of fun. I mean, it’s nothing new. Everything has been done and said before, but the Disney magic and Blunt and Johnson are just so watchable. Plemons and Giamati were the cheesy, but enjoyable characters. I mean most if it was cheese, but fun cheesy. The shots, while of course, cgi were colorful and beautiful. This would make a great 3D Blu-ray. I’m sure we’ll get one. So many scenes scream 3D. The opening alone was almost all popout. Blunt and Johnson’s entrance. Certainly the title card. The sight seeing tour in beginning. And every creature, bird, snake, other you had. The flying ghosts, supernatural stuff. The middle to end when it all goes crazy especially looked fun and great. Not too bad. I mean everything was cgi. So if you get passed that, you get passed the last 2/3rds-ish and are in for just an enjoyable, fun ride (literally and figuratively). Not so bad for some evening fun. Look forward to 3D Blu-ray eventually.

Did this show in Real 3D in theaters?

d2cheer

We were wondering that as well if it was intended for 3D as there are so many things that "pop" out at you.

OldBoy

Especially the tree branch the sight seeing tour were going to crash into you and several of Johnson’s boat roaring down the river, jumping buildings getting away from torpedoes, which is totally plausible, but all fond scenes that are ripe for 3D medium. I can’t believe not converted to get 3D revenue. That would have been great and seems like missed opportunity to get most out of theatrical run.

OldBoy

This is every period, non-period action movie in one. I saw a lot of Pirates of Caribbean, Jumani (reboot), of course Indy, Goonies, National Treasure, etc. Really no originality at all, but still fun.

Eric F

The 3D craze (this round) is over. Towards the end a few years back theatrical movies were being shown in both 3d and 2d, more often the later.

I bet they shot it this way so if/when the next 3d revival happens (probably with the next Avatar) they can rerelease it in 3d. Or maybe they have plans of showing it at the Disney parks in 3d? Who knows.

DJariya

It is playing in theaters in 3D. My local theater has 3D showings. But I saw the 2D show.

OldBoy

guess not Eric.

TomOpus

It was showing in 3D at the Regal theater but no way was I going to see it like that.

Daytripper

I so agree. I loved the first 45 minutes. It truly felt like an homage to the Indiana Jones films. And Emily Blunt was just fantastic. But then things completely went oft the rails and got really nutty with all that supernatural/fantasy crap. If they had to go the "Pirates" route, did they have to mirror those awful sequels? With the terrible CGI overkill. Had they just kept this a simple adventure movie with some minimal CGI and very little supernatrual, it would have been so much better. As is, I would rate it a 7/10. Mostly because of Blunt. And she did have terrific chemistry with Johnson.

Eric F

Be that as it may, I'm hard pressed to find anyone who really likes 3d movies. Maybe the kids, but not many adults.

Gives me a headache.

Daytripper

Other than "Avatar" and "Prometheus" (and maybe "Hugo"), I didn't get anything from the 3D movies that I saw. Including the Disney/Pixar films. I found them to be a complete waste of extra money.

Jay G.

Personally, I enjoy 3D in theaters, and find it enhances the experience.

However, both our opinions are just anecdotal. What's more objective is the fact that studios still prepare and release a 3D version of their big budget movies, so there must still be enough of an audience for them to be worthwhile. Although, aside from the upcoming Avatar sequels, almost everything live-action is a post-conversion nowadays. Likely the cost of a 3D post-conversion is a small incremental cost that is paid back by the extra cost of the 3D screenings, worldwide.

Toddarino

I enjoy 3D most of the time. I have a 3D plasma that kept me from switching to 4K for a long time. Then I realized better picture all the time makes more sense than 3D a fraction of the time. So I moved the plasma to the bedroom and upgraded the living room. That was stupid waiting so long.

Shannon Nutt

I felt exactly the same way...I really enjoyed the old-fashioness of the first hour or so, but once the movie started to delve deep into the supernatural, I completely lost interest. It's like Disney was afraid to just do an adventure where the characters are just normal human beings.

OldBoy

this thread begs to differ.

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/59...-o-vision.html

DJariya

This movie is going to be another money loser for Disney. The budget is reportedly $200M plus with another $100M plus for marketing. It needs to make at least $600-800M million to break even.

Given that it only made $34M week 1 in the states and it will likely drop at least 60% week 2, there's no chance this makes $100M in the U.S. International box office was only $27M week 1.

If this is lucky, it will make $100-150M worldwide in theaters before it fizzles out.

Also, Disney is reporting that only about $30M came from Premiere Access revenue, it doesn't seem like people who aren't going to the theaters wanted to spend the $30 at home for this. I mean I know this forum is in the minority because there's varying opinions on what movie is worth it to see in the theaters here. But, I'm assuming some just think there's no rush to see this and I can wait 3 months until it hits Disney + for "free"

When movies like this fail, it hurts future smaller movies from getting made because of the enormous losses taken here. Budgets will get cut.

Eric F

Great. Now tell me where to buy a new 3D TV.

rocket1312

What smaller movies? I'm not being snarky. I seriously can't remember the last "smaller" movie Disney made besides animal documentaries. Their lineup has been almost exclusively Pixar/Marvel/Star Wars/live action Disney classic remake for years now.

RichC2

They seem to be muddling box office losses with Disney+ as a compensatory factor. On the brightside, this will likely have the smallest drop of the major pandemic movies due to a relatively slow Thursday preview and the fact it went up on Saturday.

I also question the marketing cost on this one.