This looks terrible. The only thing worse than Will Smith is two Will Smiths.

I have a ticket for this tomorrow but reviews are just terrible...

Too bad, I was actually thinking this looked alright from the trailers. Probably will pass on it until it comes to home media.

There's only one cinema in Houston playing it in HFR, but info is conflicting. AMC site says it's 3D 60fps. Collider says it's 3D 120fps.

If it's actually 120, I might go. I own Billy Lynn on 4K and it plays at 60fps. Too bad that movie is terrible in nearly every way.
Edit: AMC on Twitter says that location is the only one doing 120fps. Hell, I might as well go.

Will probably go see this since it won't likely be replicated at home properly. Anyone know if Regal 4DX showings are also in high frame rate 3D? Common sense would say it would be but you can never tell these days. Can't believe the IMAX is showing this in shitty 2D when it was natively shot in 3D. Just another reason I hardly go to theaters, when it's so hard to make sure you're going to the "right" showing.

This was a complete fucking bore. Skip it.

Well shit, you confirmed my assumption. What the hell is going on with Ang Lee?

I mainly went last night to see what 3D HFR (60fps for the theater I went to) looked like. To be honest, it felt like I was watching a picture from an uncalibrated TV where the default sharpness & brightness levels were cranked up to max.

Several scenes seem to play toward the technology of trying to “be there” with long closeups of talking. I have to wonder what this looks like in regular 2D viewings where people are just staring at a massive closeup that feels held too long.

Plot was very by the numbers and the script/dialogue was meh/lazy. The premise is interesting, but every thing else felt flat. The main characters don’t seem like they’re worried about anything, so that’s a palpable lack of tension to the whole movie.

a few positives:
- I haven’t really watched Will Smith in something for awhile, and I realized I like his presence. Wish he was in something better.
- the totally computer generated young Will Smith was well done. There were a scene here or there where that uncanny valley hit, but it was well done more often than not
- Liked Mary Elizabeth Winstead in this
- Action scenes were short but I liked them overall. Unfortunately, a lot of the hand to hand were generally filmed in closeups.

Well... we’ll agree to disagree I guess. Debating this shitty movie isn’t anything I want to do. I’ll forget it all by tomorrow.

That was all around horrible. Story. Acting, Directing. Effects...

My PS4 Pro renders people better than this movie.

This movie would’ve been better suited as an entirely 3D Animated venture.

Saw this yesterday.
Dolby Cinema 3D 2K 120fps.

There ARE things I liked about it. Winstead was without a doubt the highlight of the film. As was the motorbike chase. Everyone else in this was just... bad. Even Clive Owen, and I think that dude is great.

The HFR was great in some shots but wasted overall. The problem is the terrible cinematography (sorry to whoever has that credit). FAR too many shots where everything is in focus, making it look like a b-roll reel for whatever location they’re in. Possibly worse were the shots where the characters are in focus in the foreground, and the background is extremely out of focus, creating that weird “actors in front of a green screen” look.

I really do think 120fps HFR could work... in more capable hands. The motorbike chase was a brief example, IMO (until the awkward fight, anyway). I think I said this in The Hobbit thread too, but the art of cinematography needs to adjust for HFR when used, the same way it has adjusted for digital.

Anyway, the film itself was kind of a bore. I wouldn’t recommend it for any reason beyond seeing it in 120fps if possible.

Oh and