Audiences pack bags for 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'

The incredibly anticipated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will roll out in 4,045 theatres this weekend, including in 3D. The adventure (which clocks in at nearly three hours, especially once you factor in trailers) already earned $13 million from midnight screenings, which is impressive given the long running time. It's also a December record. Harry Potter fans may notice that The Hobbit has a lot more in common with the popular series than Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is funnier and
lighter, and includes giant spiders and a wizard (Gandalf) that look suspiciously like creatures and characters (Dumbledore) in J.K. Rowling's novels. The downside is that every character looks like Hagrid--J.R.R. Tolkien has but one female character that shows up for the first installment. "Flaws and all, The Hobbit is too big, and too well-made, to
ignore," weighs in critic Daniel Eagan. I actually wish I had seen the gentler Hobbit first, and Lord of the Rings after. I'm sure a marathon trilogy session will be able to fix that.

Film geeks will definitely want to check out one of the 461 theatres showing the high-frame-rate version. Yes, there are criticisms of the format, but admire the fact that director Peter Jackson is putting himself out there.

The Hobbit will open big, but won't approach the levels of a Twilight. This is the kind of movie that's going to play well for weeks all the way through the holiday season. December actually isn't even known for huge openings. The biggest December opening was $77 million for I Am Legend. With estimates coming in for $75-95 million, and even over $100 million for the weekend, that's a record that will most likely topple.

No other big movie dares to release opposite The Hobbit, so this week the box office will be driven entirely by its performance.

Weighing in on the high-frame-rate version of 'The Hobbit'

Reactions to the high-frame-rate version of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey have been mixed. A demo at CinemaCon fell flat, with many exhibitors finding the format looked liked television. There is, of course, a reason for that. Film speed is 24 frames-per-second, while television is often projected at 30 fps or higher, depending on if you're watching, say, sports versus a prime-time drama. At last night's 3D, high-frame-rate screening at a Times Square multiplex, my reaction went from negative to neutral, and then cautiously positive. I do think the technology will
be part of the future of filmmaking, but it will take adjustment. History has shown that some naturalistic changes to film form were at first perceived as unnatural. Most famously, Technicolor was reserved for big-budget, showy pictures, while dramas and serious movies stayed with the lower-cost black-and-white format. Perhaps in part because of the genres that used color, seeing a film in color was seen as unnatural. Now, watching a black-and-white movie, it's hard to imagine anyone finding that medium more realistic-looking. Early Technicolor was, in fact, often brighter and more saturated than real life, which may have been part of what audiences were reacting to. Now we don't even think about that. We just think color = more real.

In the opening, brightly lit scenes of The Hobbit, the high frame rate looked wrong. It was either my eyes adjusting, or (if they shot in sequence, which is doubtful), that they were just figuring out the best lighting for the high frame rate. So most likely my eyes just needed a period of time to acclimate, as my mind reconciled watching a frame rate we only see in TV with an epic movie. Because high frame rates show so much detail, they have a tendency to make sets look fake. Again, I think that's something that productions will learn to accommodate. On the flip side, you can see the actor's hair flyaways, the texture of a wool sweater, and other minute details that normally aren't captured by film. Still objects, in particular, look amazingly real. I do feel a bit sorry for the actors who now have every single pore and wrinkle showing. With an almost all-male cast of gruff-looking dwarves, that isn't a problem, but it will definitely be an issue when dealing with romances or anyone supposed to look pretty. Right now, the hazy-light filters Jackson appears to be employing in certain scenes just aren't cutting it.

One problem I often have with movies is when they quickly pan, which can look choppy and feel uncomfortable to the eye under standard frame rates. There have been many times that quick motion and pans have brought me
out of the narrative, and I internally chastised the director for
violating film's laws of motion. With The Hobbit, this isn't an issue.

I admire Peter Jackson for advocating for a new technology by actually doing it himself, and to a series worth billions of dollars, no less. It's not quite as wowing as the 3D in James Cameron's Avatar, but I also think the benefits of high frame rate will be easier to replicate. So many poor 3D movies released in the wake of Avatar, with none worth the extra ticket price. I hope that high frame rate does not command a ticket premium, but makes the theatrical moviegoing experience that much more vivid and distinct from an in-home experience. There are many films that can benefit from high frame rates, so more directors should follow Jackson's path and experiment with providing an even better experience with this technology.

James Cameron previews footatge of 3D 'Titanic'

By Sarah Sluis

"Are you ready to go back to Titanic?" In advance of the movie's spring re-release, director James Cameron and producer Jon Landau previewed eighteen minutes of 3D-converted footage in New York City today for journalists. Cameron is currently shepherding the film through a sixty-week, $18 million, 2D to 3D conversion process. Set to open April 7, 2012, the re-release will commemorate the hundred-year anniversary of Titanic's voyage and sinking (April 10th-14th, 2012). But what about the 3D? The answer may be that it's beside the point.

As the re-release of The Lion King in 3D has shown, audiences went to the theatres primarily to revisit a classic, beloved movie. The 3D was an afterthought, and a significant percentage of ticket-buyers opted for 2D. I think viewers will approach Titanic in 3D the same way. While I mostly enjoyed seeing the footage in 3D, what I most connected to was the movie itself. I had forgotten what an immersive, emotional experience the film was--and how much of a difference it makes to see it on the big screen. Cameron hopes the movie will be a success because of its "nostalgia component," people remembering who they saw it with at the time, "the relationships they were in," and otherwise connecting to where they were when the movie came out. He said that the teen girls who saw Titanic multiple times (that would include me and all the other girls in my 7th grade class) were in the minority, maybe "only $200 million" of the movie's $1.8 billion box office. If the movie played from "eight to eighty" the first time around, Titanic should have similar broad appeal in the re-release.

Cameron noted that increasingly, people are making choices about which movies they want to see in theatres and which ones they want to see on Netflix. It's a "contract with yourself" to see a movie in a theatre, because it means you're deciding that film deserves to be seen with your full attention and no multitasking. It's also a social experience. People saw Titanic twelve weeks in because they were making a point to see the movie with valued friends and family, and it "takes time" to coordinate schedules. I agree that Titanic played best in theatres. I myself bought the two-VHS box set but couldn't bring myself to rewatch the movie more than a few times. Each time I saw the future Oscar winner in theatres, once with a friend and a few weeks later with my Mom, the theatre was sold-out, packed with ooh-ing audiences. That kind of experience makes going to the theatre worthy.

Cameron, who has long been an advocate of 3D, also commented on the direction the medium has been taking. He was fine with Titanic queuing up behind a number of other re-releases. In early 2012, Disney tries its luck again with Beauty and the Beast 3D (Jan. 13) and George Lucas re-releases Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (Feb. 10), all before Titanic's April re-release. Cameron's in favor of 3D re-releases of library titles--they're the "only reason" to choose conversion. He lambasted "Hollywood bean counters" who would opt for an $8 million conversion over the $10 million to shoot native 3D when the first would be only "half as good." He also gave a nod to director Martin Scorsese's upcoming 3D Hugo, citing it as an example of an "auteur" who sees 3D as just another color to paint with.

Will Titanic see the same success as The Lion King? I think the movie should do at least as well. We're talking about the #6 domestic movie of all time, using adjusted box office figures. The movie will be marketed with at least as much energy as a new release, according to Cameron and Landau. The campaign will also have to correct for the vagaries of people's memories. For example, he mentioned that a lot of people remember the movie as a sappy love story (I'll put myself in that category), but the marketing will remind people of how much was at stake: This is also a disaster movie in which people die terrible deaths, freezing and drowning in the icy waters. During the clips, I was reminded of just how suspenseful the original movie was. The scene where Rose frees Jack from his handcuffs as the icy waters rise, for example, had me on the edge of my seat. During other sequeneces, I had to hold back tears--from one-minute scenes! Cameron has heartstring-pulling down to a science.

The re-release of Titanic will definitely reignite nostalgia for the movie and introduce a whole new audience to the romance-disaster epic. Some of the effects may look dated, and Kate Winslet's black-undertoned dye job looks more 1990s than 1920s, but their performances show why they're still top actors today. If Lion King could do $80 million, it would be a tragedy if Titanic's re-release reaches port before earning at least $100 million.

Pixar's 'Cars 2' uses 3D for depth behind the screen

By Sarah Sluis

At a Manhattan screening of Cars 2 last night, security distributed adult and child-sized glasses for the 3D presentation. With my glasses on, I was greeted with the familiar Pixar brand of 3D. Like Toy Story 3 and Up in the two preceding summers, the movie was very conservative in popping out the image. I think the furthest the image went out into the audience was during the opening credits. At a few points in the movie I removed my 3D glasses, and discovered just how conservative Pixar was in creating their 3D images. None of the split images popped the visuals out into the audience. They were only splitting the image to create depth behind the screen.

The main characters taking up most of the screen looked exactly the same with glasses on and glasses off. The scenery behind them was rendered in duplicate, creating depth that only felt slightly more convincing than 2D depth. I respect Pixar's decision not to create a gimmicky 3D experience by breaking the fourth wall and attacking the audience with the image, but it doesn't speak much for the future of 3D. Seeing an image come at me, even slightly, is why I see a 3D movie. If Pixar, widely regarded as the most technologically innovative animation studio, won't play around with 3D, who will? So far, only James Cameron has provided effects that came out at the audience without taking them out of the story, but immersing them further in the movie world.

The depth behind objects created by stereoscopic 3D isn't that impressive. In real life, we understand distance through monocular depth cues anyway. Seeing a road get smaller as it fades into the background is just as effective as splitting the image to make it fall back. Then there's the oh-so-mild eye strain that I now experience when watching 3D films. If I were paying for my ticket, I don't think I'd pay extra for the 3D. Pixar's spending their money on making better animation, like their stunning landscapes of an Italian town perched on a cliff above a beach and a neon, vertical Tokyo. 3D adds a little, but not enough to justify the extra cost. My judgment on Cars 2: See it in 2D.

Would you see 'Titanic' again in 3D?

By Sarah Sluis

I was a teenager when Titanic came out in theatres, part of the movie's core Leonardio DiCaprio-obsessed demographic. I saw it in theatres, twice, in a packed house full of people crying into their popcorn and gasping in delight. The movie was the talk of the school. One girl I knew had seen it in theatres seven times. Now, director/writer/producer James Cameron has announced that the movie will return in a 3D version in theatres April 6, 2012, roughly coinciding with the hundred-year anniversary of the ship's sailing. But I don't know if I want to see it.

I caught a few minutes of Titanic on television a month ago, and I was surprised that the dialogue I found so suspenseful and heart-wrenching came out as plain cheesy. Even back in the day, the movie's pull lessened once it was on VHS. Though I rushed out to buy the two-volume set upon release, the movie languished on its shelf. The film was too emotionally draining to pique interest when I was in a movie-watching mood, and the three-hour, fifteen-minute running time required too much of a commitment. I feel the same way about seeing it again in theatres. Though I could see a team of my friends getting together for a middle school rehash, and of course I have a professional interest in seeing the 3D conversion, I'm not sure if I want to "go back to Titanic." But younger viewers might.

In the press release, Cameron remarked that "there's a whole generation that's never seen Titanic as it was meant to be seen, on the big screen." I think younger viewers, particularly teenaged Twilight fiends, will respond well to Titanic. In comparison, I look to the remastered version of Star Wars. The 1997 re-release hit theatres when my younger brother was in elementary school, and the series became one of his favorites, an experience that was shared by his friends. Plastic figurines from the movie migrated into our house, and the boxed set trilogy became his go-to choice during sick days. Like Star Wars, Titanic has the ability to speak to a new generation. Just as in my family, younger viewers may be shepherded into the theatre by their parents. They remember the impact these movies had on them, and want to share it in a darkened theatre over popcorn and, this time, wearing 3D glasses.

It finally happened to me: 3D sickness

By Sarah Sluis

When the house lights come down and the opening music swells, I'm normally filled with the excitement and anticipation of settling into a movie. I'm not frantically rubbing my 3D glasses and squinting, trying to figure out if there's something wrong with the image, or something wrong with me.

Yesterday I caught a screening of Sanctum 3D at the AMC at 34th Street in Manhattan, on one of the "smaller" IMAX screens. The executive producer is James Cameron, whose Avatar wowed me, so I was expecting a technically awesome 3D experience. Instead, I felt like I was rehashing the reviews I read of Clash of the Titans. It was not a pleasant experience, but, thankfully, the worst subsided (or my eyes adjusted) within the first twenty minutes.

Scratched glasses. IMAX recycles their glasses, which is a good thing in theory, but can also lead to scratches that impair viewing and lead to that manual polishing, a particularly difficult thing to do during sweater season, when a scratchy wool garment simply isn't an option for polishing. I had a couple of vertical scratches that would leak color/light upwards and downwards. If I looked offscreen at the ubiquitous EXIT lamp, for example, I would see red below and above the text, and it was the same onscreen as well. Some of the "extra" image I saw, however, wasn't because of the scratched glasses, but because of "ghosting."

As described in my article about 3D conversion companies, stereoscopic 3D can lead to ghosting in high-contrast areas. 3D involves combining a left-eye and right-eye image, and high-contrast images often leave a ghostly artifact of the separate images. This happened to me noticeably during one shot that occurred within the first five minutes. I could see a white outline to the left of the object that should have rendered completely to the right. I had the same problem with the white text on the black background, which blurred upwards and downwards--though I suspect this had more to do with the scratches in my glasses than ghosting.

Vertigo/queasiness with sweeping horizontal shots. Sanctum is a thriller set in a massive cave, and the movie opens with some sweeping aerial shots of the jungle and the cave. These gave me a fleeting sense of vertigo, and, at other points in the movie, a bit of stomach unease. Quick pans are a no-no for 3D movies, so either I was extra-sensitive to this shot or the filmmakers tried to move the camera too fast.

So what caused my bad experience? 3D problems can originate with 1) the glasses 2) the theatre's projection 3) the film not working within the limits of stereoscopic 3D 4) being part of the 5-10% (though I've heard as high as 30%) of people that just can't take 3D.

1) My glasses did feel off, and I've successfully seen films with IMAX glasses before as well as Dolby and RealD. I switched glasses with my viewing companion (they didn't bother him) and this seemed to help a bit, but it can't explain all the problems I had.

2) The theatre's projection. Hard to tell. I would have to see this movie again at another theatre in order to speculate, and I really think only an expert could identify exactly what's going on (e.g. if there are syncing issues).

3) The filmmakers. Again, this movie was executive produced by James Cameron so I would expect the technical details to be top-notch. I suspect the filmmakers may have put in some shots that they knew would be challenging to an above-average portion of the audience, but I don't want to indict them for more than that.

4) Me. I've successfully seen close to a dozen 3D movies, and I've overwhelmingly had a positive experience, with a few minor issues. I did feel like I was way too close to the screen, something I've never felt before (and I'm pretty sure I always pick a similar middle spot), and in the future I think I'll sit another five rows back out of caution. I ended up with a dull headache that lasted some time after the credits ended, along with a feeling of having to focus and concentrate way more than normal--it felt as if I had to "squint" the whole movie.

My consensus? I left more puzzled than totally turned off by 3D. Since it's hard to diagnose exactly what happened, I'll do what I can: double-check my glasses for scratches and sit an extra five rows back from the screen. I'm also newly grateful for the fact that movies release in both 2D and 3D for those that have problems with the images, because bad 3D can, literally, give you a headache.

First-place 'Megamind' halts 'Unstoppable'

By Sarah Sluis

The family-friendly Megamind continued its run at number one for the second week, earning $30 million. The superhero/villain comedy dipped just 34%, as audiences eager for entertainment with family appeal turned out for the well-received movie. That puts the movie in the "average" range among other animated films. This week will be Megamind's last in the spotlight, however, as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I will take away a large chunk of the movie's audience this Friday.

Denzel Washington's Unstoppable debuted to $23.5 million, drawing in slightly older audiences and equal amounts of males and females. Washington knows how to pick his movies, and this marks his eighth film in a row to open above $20 million. With the addition of Star Trek star Chris Pine, this movie had broad appeal, leading THR critic Todd McCarthy to anoint it "the best blue collar action movie in who knows how long."

The effects-heavy, story-light Skyline opened to $11.6 million. The sci-fi film came with a cheap price tag, around $10 million, so its opening figure should ensure the movie's profitability. Despite some catchy moments in the trailer and an interesting premise, the alien tale did not incorporate the complexity of last summer's much-buzzed-about District 9, which opened to an out-of-this-world $37 million.

Audiences slept through Morning Glory's opening weekend. which followed up its Wednesday opening with a $9.6 million weekend for a total of $12.2 million. Given the movie's all-star cast, including Diane Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford, Patrick Wilson, and Jeff Goldblum, the workplace romantic comedy's lackluster performance is surprising. As the tagline states--"What's the story, Morning Glory?"

Among specialty releases, indie darling Tiny Furniture had the highest per-screen average of the week, netting $22,000 from the IFC Theatre in New York City. 127 Hours had an impressive second-week finish with a $20,000 per-screen average at 22 theatres. Director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) appears to have a second hit-in-the-making. Fair Game, which expanded again in its second week, held on, averaging $6,000 per screen as it nearly quadrupled the amount of theatres in its release.

This Friday, the penultimate film in the Harry Potter series should deliver another one of its sold-out, hyped weekends. The adult-oriented action thriller The Next Three Days will offer complementary fare, going for an audience that's outgrown Hogwarts.

DOC NYC Fest: Werner Herzog's 3D doc 'Cave of Forgotten Dreams'

By Sarah Sluis

Werner Herzog returns to the documentary format in Cave of Forgotten Dreams, a 3D look at the recently discovered caves in Chauvet, France, which is open only to researchers. The film will be one of the gala presentations at the DOC NYC Fest. The Nov. 3, 7pm screening has already sold out--not surprising since it will include a Q&A with Herzog--but persistent viewers can always try standby.

First off: The 3D. Herzog's crew filmed in 3D, and the results are mixed. For the scenes within the cave, the 3D works effectively, adding a sense of hyper-reality and contours to the drawings. In other spots, it looks terrible--3D and shaky camera movements do not mix.

In his narration, Herzog lets us know what his crew was up against: just four of his crew could enter at one time, and cold panel lights were all that could be used to illuminate the paintings. The crew was restricted to a metal walkway, so as not to disturb the cave bear prints, bones, and other artifacts lying on the ground. While the limited access can be frustrating, in one case it works in the movie's favor. On a stalactite, a drawing of a woman's legs and pubic area is married with that of a buffalo, revealing a primordial sense of mythology that lingers today: the half animal, half person. However, the crew can barely access the area, giving us just a glimpse. Later, they return to get a better view with a camera attached to a pole, although it captures just slightly more detail. The sequence recreates the same feeling of unlocking a puzzle that the researchers themselves must feel. As we look with Herzog about the rest of the vast and remote chamber, which cannot be extensively explored because of the high levels of carbon dioxide, the audience senses the possibility of the unknown. It's not a "Cave of Forgotten Dreams," but of fleeting ones, with understanding and access just beyond our grasp.

Herzog seizes on these mystical aspects. At one point, he asks everyone in the cave to be quiet, leaving us with the sound of dripping water, echoes, and a heartbeat. This Herzog touch elevates the movie a step above documentaries of its type, but at times it can feel forced, as when he asks an interviewee rather contrived questions about his dreams concerning the cave.

Herzog's ambitious look at the Chauvet caves does not entirely deliver, but it's a worthy diversion that offers a peek into a little-seen artifact of human history.

Will 'Resident Evil 3D' scare away the competition?

By Sarah Sluis

The sole wide release this weekend is Resident Evil: Afterlife (3,203 theatres), the fourth in the series and the first to take advantage of the 3D trend. Since The Hollywood Reporter has pronounced zombies the new vampires, maybe the creatures will attract new audiences. Though most critics have yet to see the movie, the first dozen reviews have been mostly negative, prematurely burying the video game

adaptation with an 11% positive rating. Shot in bona-fide 3D using technology pioneered by James Cameron himself--the film appears to have no plot to back up the stunning visuals. According to Bloody-Disgusting (a website that specializes in movies that are just that), director Paul W.S. Anderson "fails to build a story; there's absolutely nothing at stake, and even less for any of the characters to lose." Worse, the site goes on to note, Anderson creates a movie that takes itself too seriously. Despite its dismal reviews, the movie could top $20 million this weekend, especially once you factor in the 3D revenue and 141 IMAX screens.

Twi-hards can see Bella and Jacob on the big screen once more in a re-release of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (1,187 theatres) intended to promote sales of the upcoming DVD. The next Twilight (Breaking Dawn Part I) comes out over a year from now, so this will be the last chance to see the vampire romance on the big screen for some time. The re-release should average out in the single-digit millions.

Among holdovers, The American is expected to play strongest, given the appeal of the thriller genre and star George Clooney to older audiences.

Joaquin Phoenix's kind-of documentary I'm Still Here (20 theatres) may benefit from a bit of a rubber-

necking, according to FJI critic David Noh, who called it a "cinematic car accident you can't take your eyes from." Filled with drugs, prostitution, a misguided attempt at a rapping career, and nudity, the movie is a bit sad when viewed in context. "Much of the film plays like an extended, wholly misguided cry for help," Noh says, pointing out that Phoenix's real-life experience: His brother died of a drug overdose in front of him, and the 911 tape was replayed constantly, a sick reminder of the tragedy.

Lush Ivy Leaguers contemplate love in The Romantics (NY/LA), which Noh also disliked, dubbing it a "'mumblecore'-style movie gotten up in preppy drag." Those who have been intrigued by Aboriginal culture since seeing Rabbit-Proof Fence can check out a more upbeat, musical celebration in Bran Nue Dae (16 theatres), which "has so much feel-good fizz that you can almost overlook its rickety construction," according to critic Megan Lehmann.

On Monday, it's time for Resident Evil: Afterlife to count its chips from opening weekend, and the specialty films to set their sights on expanding crowds in advance of the numerous year-end awards contenders that will roll in quicker than the fall weather.

3D version of kids' film gets more restrictive rating

By Sarah Sluis

A rather curious thing happened in Sweden. The 2D and 3D versions of a film (Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore) received different ratings. The 3D version earned a PG rating, while the 2D film received a G rating.

Earlier, the Swedish authorities made known that they would review 2D and 3D films separately, which makes some sense: bawdiness can seem more excessive if certain things are blown out into the audience's space, and horror movies can come across as scarier. But if the content is essentially the same, it seems rather odd to give a movie two different ratings.

In one sense, it's a bit of an embarrassment. It shows just how subjective the ratings process is (as highlighted in the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated). Two different groups reviewed the two films, but the 3D apparently made everything more "intense," an interesting statement in itself. By giving the 3D version a stronger rating, the Swedish raters suggest that the 3D did, in fact, provide a more immersive experience.

While I'm a big fan of 3D, after the first few minutes of wearing the glasses you "get used to it" and don't really notice that you're wearing them unless some crazy 3D effect pops out and reminds you (something many filmmakers try to avoid, but I secretly love). However, the reaction of the Swedish rating team proves that the effect of seeing something in 3D persists even after your eyes adjust.

The dual ratings may confuse audiences and pose a challenge for the marketing campaign in Sweden. Because so many movies are released in both 2D and 3D, advertisements have been hesitant to play up the "awesomeness" of the 3D at the expense of the 2D screens. Instead, the advantage to seeing a movie in 3D often comes across more like paying for front-row seats and getting a better view rather than a transformative experience. Sure, movies like Avatar accrued a higher percentage of their revenue from 3D screens because of word-of-mouth and positive buzz on the 3D version, but the 2D equivalent was never denigrated. As the world of 3D releases expands, I'm sure there will be more moments like this to come.

Noteworthy cinematography and the rise of 3D

By Sarah Sluis

You may think you know something about how movies are shot until you start surfing through the website for the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). All of a sudden they're blogging about parallax problems in 3D and edge violation and cute videos Disney made to teach projectionists how to adjust for the floating window in their 3D films properly (this helps fix the 'edge violation,' a.k.a. the problem of the 3D effect going away or looking weird along the edge of the screen. It also means that during production, cinematographers have to shoot a specific way, like avoiding over-the-shoulder shots, in order to make the 3D look good). When you're caught up watching a movie, it's easy to forget how difficult it is to even accurately represent reality in a movie. Most amateur picture-takers have experienced the familiar problem of over or underexposure. The sun or window turns up abnormally bright in a picture, while the poor person standing in front of it has a dark, unrecognizable face. Or focus problems, like a crisp image of your friend against the blurry landmark in the background. But for professional cinematographers, correcting for these kind of problems is just the beginning of their job.

That's why it's interesting to see the results of an online poll ranking the best cinematography in films from 1998-2008. The experts belonging to the ASC picked the finalists, then the Internet at large picked its favorite. The winner? Amelie, which I remember most for its manipulation of color, infusing certain scenes with saturated colors, as well as its use of a Super 8 camera for its nostalgic opening sequence. Movies with dark, shadowy cinematography also turned up, like The Dark Knight or noir-ish Road to Perdition. Children of Men is known for its moving-camera sequences, Saving Private Ryan for the challenges of its shoot ( the camerawork in the D-Day sequence were pretty incredible). Way down on the list is The New World, one of my favorites, for its stunning depiction of the

natural world. Watching that movie was like going on a hike.

The list says more about what people recognize as good cinematography rather than what actually went into making the movie. Stylized cinematography wins over naturalistic cinematography, simply because it's more noticeable. Coloring and shadowing are among the most readily accessible parts of cinematography: they're meant to be noticed. Seamless moving camera shots that focus on multiple characters (like that famous Citizen Kane shot that moves from outside with the young Kane sledding to indoors) are more invisible than a shot that follows one person through a dynamic space--like Martin Scorsese's use of the shot in Raging Bull (YouTube clip) and Goodfellas. But is one better than the other?

While this list only goes until 2008, last year the 3D, CGI Avatar won for Best Cinematography. Even if cinematographers have already accepted and rewarded 3D as an art form, it can't "do" all the same things that cinematographers do with 2D films. As the ASC blogger states, "It has been suggested that in the 3-D world, a much reduced selection

of lenses (and wider ones at that) is advisable � that the longer focal

length lenses I often prefer, and the shallow depth of field I choose

for dramatic purposes, are elements that do not strongly support the

guidelines for effective 3-D cinema." That doesn't mean people won't come up with creative solutions to 3D's various challenges--everyone praised Avatar--but that also means some will be more interested in mounting the learning curve than others. Christoper Nolan isn't swayed by the hassle of shooting in 3D, saying he would prefer to add it in post-production, and also gripes about the darker images projected by 3D, which is particularly problematic for the dark, shadowy films he makes. I will happily go to see his 2D Inception this July. As far as I can tell, there are no James Cameron-level 3D movies in the works now. How many 3D movies will show up among the ASC's list ten years from now remains to be seen.

'Knight and Day' and 'Grown Ups' aim for teen and adult crowds

By Sarah Sluis

Adults and teens will be greeted with two summer movie staples this weekend: a big-name comedy, Grown Ups, and a slick action comedy, Knight and Day. But don't expect either of them to beat the second weekend of Toy Story 3, which should earn well over $50 million.

Pairing up Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, Knight and Day (3,098 theatres) jump-started the weekend by opening on Wednesday, bringing in $3.8 million on opening day. However, Toy Story 3 brought in $13.4 million the same day, a sign that the movie will be trounced at the box office. Critic Kevin Lally summed up the movie "as disposable and inconsequential as summer entertainments get," but for audiences dividing their attention between the film and their giant buckets of popcorn, they might get exactly what they wished for.

Grown Ups (3,534 theatres) is a movie cast with extremely funny people that isn't really funny at all--unless you're the kind of person who thinks that

bodily fluids are so hilarious you squirt milk out your nose in laughter. I'm talking to you, fourth-grade lunchroom table. The movie is an exercise in mediocrity, and at best numbs you for a couple of hours. Apparently, the cast had fun making the movie, but as this slideshow from New York Magazine suggests, the more fun you have during shooting, the less fun the audience usually has watching the final product.

A moving war documentary that's also a selection at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival, Restrepo follows a group of soldiers stationed in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. Without drawing

conclusions about its participants, it offers a reminder of "one of the irreducible, grim absurdities of this war, which is the disjunction between its lofty strategic and ideological imperatives and the dusty, frustrating reality on the ground," as New York Times critic A.O. Scott points out. I wrote about the movie on this blog earlier this week, and give it my thumbs up.

On Monday, we'll weigh in on the second-week drop of Toy Story 3, wonder if it's the end for Tom Cruise with Knight and Day, and see how many audiences fell for stupid-funny Grown Ups.

For 'Shrek Forever After,' $71 million is a not-so-happy beginning

By Sarah Sluis

The second and third installments of Shrek both opened to over $100 million, so perhaps it's fitting that the final movie, Shrek Forever After, started winding things down, with a $71.2 million debut. DreamWorks

Animation probably saw the writing on the wall with Shrek 3, which earned just 2.6 times its opening weekend. By comparison, the first Shrek movie earned an astonishing 6.3 times its opening weekend, while Shrek 2 earned 4.1 times its opening weekend. Most animated movies have better-than-average holding power, but Shrek movies have started to play more like franchise blockbusters, drawing in first-week audiences but then failing to catch on among a wide audience or those who have grown tired of the franchise. Good reviews for the fourth film could help this movie in coming weeks, as will its three competition-free weekends before another 3D animated sequel hits the market, Toy Story 3. Even with diminished returns the fourth time around, if Shrek Forever After can bring in three times its opening weekend, it's set for over $200 million in the U.S.

"Saturday Night Live" skit-turned-movie MacGruber attracted just a small subset of SNL viewers for an

underwhelming $4.1 million weekend and sixth place finish. The comedy was the first SNL skit to be made into a movie in ten years, and its poor performance does not bode well for another skit adaptation to hit theatres. I personally was not even a fan of the skit, which was pretty one-note, and it appears many other viewers felt the same way and passed on the movie.

A Bollywood movie cracked the top ten this week. Kites brought in $1 million to debut in eighth place. Our critic Frank Lovece described the movie as "not what most audiences think of when they think Bollywood," but the Bollywood-lite emphasis on fate, romance, melodrama, and action may have been just what American audiences were looking for. An even shorter version, Kites: The Remix, will open this Friday, intent on attracting mainstream audiences.

The strongest returning films in the top ten were Letters to Juliet and Date Night. Letters to Juliet dropped just 32% to $9.1 million in its second weekend. Summit predicted strong word-of-mouth two weeks ago after holding sneak previews of the film, and it appears they were right. Date Night held steady with a 26% slide in its seventh weekend, earning $2.8 million. The stars of these two films are among my favorites and most "likable," which I think has something to do with their movies' holding power.

Among specialty films, Solitary Man had the highest per-screen average, $22,500. Michael Douglas "delivers one of the finest performances of his career," according to critic Kevin Lally. With an 81% positive Rotten Tomatoes rating, this movie is poised to do well in coming weeks.

This Friday, female audiences will finally have their turn to make a film go to number one with the debut of Sex and the City 2, and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time will seek to enchant younger-skewing and family audiences.

So 3D films make lots of money...but will it last?

By Sarah Sluis

2010 is the year of the 3D deluge. Last year started out small, with an evenly-spaced array of movies like Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, and Up. Then there was Avatar, the movie that brought 3D to the masses. Those who hadn't viewed any of the 3D movies in niche genres like animation, horror, or concerts turned out for their first 3D experience en masse. ShoWest this year wasn't even about selling the idea of digital and 3D conversion to exhibitors. The consensus has already been reached, and now everyone's just trying to figure out how to switch over as fast as they can.

This weekend, up to four 3D movies will be in the top ten--and that's with a huge lack of 3D screens, which can't be installed fast enough to keep up with demand. But Clash of the Titans' entrance into the marketplace will be a dilution of the 3D experience that could threaten the model of 3D. Like Alice in Wonderland, another movie I was thoroughly disappointed in, Clash of the Titans went 3D in post-production, which gives the 3D a schlocky look without any of the artistry that comes from incorporating 3D sequences from the beginning. When you start devaluing the 3D experience, people won't be willing to pay for it. I don't mind paying a little extra for 3D, but if people start catching on to the fact that some movies are being released in 3D purely for the $3+ ticket price hike, there will be resistance. Already, I've heard many people in New York comment on the exorbitant prices to see movies in 3D IMAX, where tickets in Manhattan go for $19.50. Usually, complaints come in the form of "I could do X for that..." In New York, people can see live shows for less.

3D ticket prices are also going up. According to Variety, not only have exhibitors recently hiked 3D prices, they have done so unevenly, with AMC supposedly raising prices for Alice in Wonderland "just $3" compared to other 3D movies. I would support varied 3D pricing based on whether or not the movie is authored in 3D, but it's an unusual precedent to set. However, this may be just a limited test. Pricing was consistent across films when I checked AMC prices on Fandango: A non-3D movie like The Last Song went for $12.50, 3D screens showing How to Train Your Dragon and Alice in Wonderland were retailing for $17.50, and the "3D IMAX Experience" of How to Train Your Dragon went for $19.50.

The Wall Street Journal has also commented on the 3D craze, with one astute film historian, Peter Decherney, predicting that 3D films will decrease once film studios figure out how to monetize Internet revenue, just as 3D films in the 1950s disappeared once studios embraced television instead of viewing it as competition. That's the best historically-grounded argument I've heard about the future of 3D to date. While I think the 3D medium is sound and here to stay, it will only be produced as long as audiences are willing to pay for it--and I'm not willing to bet on the whims of American public just yet.

There's still over twenty 3D movies left in the 2010 slate, so there will be plenty of examples to see how 3D hashes out over the remainder of the year.

Will the 3D Popeye preserve its cartoon-like look?

By Sarah Sluis

Variety brought news today that Popeye, the upcoming animated adaptation from Sony, will release in 3D. What struck me was the accompanying image, which showed a black-outlined, cartoon Popeye. Would it be possible to preserve that kind of look and pop it out in 3D? Most likely--but would the filmmakers choose that visual look?

The 3D movies I've seen over the past year have had astounding visuals. Up had a wonderful, softly rendered look with a unifying color palette. Avatar created luminous CG forests and floating mountains that looked more real in 3D than they did in the 2D images or clips that often accompanied news pieces about the story. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, while having a more traditional look, had Muppets-inspired characters and visuals that tried to include power lines and machinery and the other things most animated towns leave out of their cities. The best of them all, How to Train Your Dragon (coming out this Friday), has a stunning chiaroscuro look. Fire-lit viking dwellings and caves give the movie a medieval feel.

3D and CG animation are a natural fit. Together, they've elevated animation and even allowed it to become more stylized. Famed live-action cinematographer Roger Deakins helped create the cinematography in How to Train Your Dragon, even warranting a profile at the New York Times. As I wrote a couple of months ago, lighting and animation departments typically don't talk to each other, something Deakins changed when he came in as a supervisor, to considerable effect. Dragon is setting a high standard for animated films that others will surely follow.

I hope Popeye preserves its cartoon look while bumping it out into three dimensions--giving it the feel of a pop-up book, perhaps. While it may be tempting to give the character smooth corners and a CG look, I would welcome the opportunity to see something more retro, much in the same way Disney's Lilo & Stitch brought back the watercolor backgrounds of Disney films fifty years before. (It's worth mentioning that Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon share the same directing team--Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois are animation directors to watch)

Right now Popeye has a producer (Avi Arad of Spider-Man) and a screenwriter (Mike Jones, a former trade reporter and self-proclaimed Popeye fan). It's far too soon to tell how Popeye will look, but hopefully it will join my list of animated films with an unusual, non-CG look--like Pixar's The Bear and the Bow , the next animated film I have my eye on.

'Alice in Wonderland' on track for a fantastic opening weekend

By Sarah Sluis

Alice in Wonderland opens this weekend in an astounding 3,728 theatres, 2,063 of which will be in 3D, along with 180 IMAX theatres. The movie is expected to earn in the $70 million range for its opening weekend, on par with the first weekend of Avatar. Sadly, though, the 3D doesn't even come close to Avatar's. Instead of being shot with 3D cameras, the 3D was added in post-production, a difference noticeable to my eyes. Take the foliage in both of the movies: in Avatar, it's enchanting, but in Alice, it often seemed muddled, distracting, or even eye-straining to watch. Critical response has been mixed, with a current 54% on Rotten Tomatoes. FJI critic Ethan Alter found that director Tim Burton fell short. "When he's at the top of his game, Burton is able to marry his surrealistic visual sensibility with a plot powered by a strong emotional through-line," but the "potent storyline" of a "young woman who finds the courage to defy convention and follow her dreams...gets lost amidst all the banal wonders of his Wonderland." Despite these flaws, the movie will be seen by millions of people, and its $250 million price tag will be offset by that strength of Disney's, merchandising.

Yet another R-rated movie, Brooklyn's Finest (1,936 theatres), will round out the weekend's box office. From director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), the cop movie suffers from an "overwhelming sense of dj vu," according to critic Daniel Eagan. While populated by talented actors, including Ethan Hawke, Don Cheadle, Wesley Snipes and Ellen Barkin, their stories are timeworn, with "equally threadbare plots that leave no clich unplumbed, no coincidence ignored, no cheap irony neglected."

While Avatar was in fourth place last weekend, it will take a hit as Alice replaces Avatar on IMAX and many 3D screens. Second-weeker Cop Out will have to battle serious-minded police movie Brooklyn's Finest, and Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief will take a hit as family-friendly Alice comes into view. Oscar fever will help shore up specialty fare such as A Prophet, The Last Station, Crazy Heart, The Blind Side, and a half-dozen others. When the Oscar ceremony begins at 8pm EST on Sunday, I'll be in one place: parked in front of my television and hoping for a few surprises.

Clash of the Tentpoles: 'Avatar,' �Alice,' �Titans' and �Dragon' compete for 3D screens

By Sarah Sluis

Three Oscar-nominated movies this year released in 3D: Best Picture nominees Avatar and Up, and Best Animated Feature nominee Coraline (Up also received a nomination in that category). 3D has arrived not only at the multiplex but the most prestigious awards ceremony in film.

Too bad there aren't enough screens to show these movies in 3D.

Just when distributors and exhibitors finally ironed out an agreement that would allow them to share the cost of digital upgrades, the recession hit. Though the film industry remains in good shape, in part because of the conversions to the higher-priced screens that did happen, production of 3D films exceeds theatrical capacity. Wide releases need thousands of screens, and right now there's only room for one film at a time.

Last year, Coraline had to compete with My Bloody Valentine 3D for early 2009 spots in 3D screens. This year, behemoth Avatar will have to cede to Tim Burton's 3D fantasy Alice in Wonderland. With Avatar still selling out 3D theatres, especially in IMAX, there's talk of extending Avatar's run. According to a New York Times article on the subject, there have been talks to allow Avatar to continue playing for midnight screenings (which presumably would be less popular for the PG-rated Alice) as a compromise.

The crowding doesn't end there. Just this week, Warner Bros. announced it has converted Clash of the Titans, a Greek mythology-inspired action movie, to 3D. That means the movie will step on the toes of How to Train Your Dragon, a (charming!) DreamWorks animation tale. Though the studio changed Clash of the Titans' release date from March 26th to April 2nd, Titatns will now grab some screens from Dragon just a week after the movie releases.

But, wait, there's more! Because of the low cost of converting a 2D film to 3D ($5 million or so), tons of big-budget films have jumped on the bandwagon. The last two Harry Potter movies will definitely be in 3D, as will Cats and Dogs 2. Despite Transformers 3's looming deadline, there are talks of converting the movie to 3D in post-production. What started out with animation studios like Pixar and DreamWorks Animation, who committed to produce all their upcoming films in 3D, has turned into a format almost every genre is rushing to embrace. Get ready to make 3D glasses standard eyewear at the movies.

An early look at 'How to Train Your Dragon,' 'Shrek Forever After' and 'Megamind'

By Sarah Sluis

In the world of animation, Pixar may be getting most of the press and awards, but DreamWorks Animation is sneaking up on them. While Pixar is releasing an average of one film a year, DreamWorks Animation has three movies lined up for 2010, all in 3D.

At a presentation in New York yesterday, I saw 10 minutes of Megamind (releasing November 5th), 30 minutes of Shrek Forever After (releasing May 21st) and a feature-length version of How to Train Your Dragon (releasing March 26th).

How to Train Your Dragon is the most Pixar-esque of the bunch, eschewing pop culture references and humor in favor of a universal story and an intricately conceived world. The cinematography is stunning, and represents a huge step forward in CG animation. As directors Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders explained to us, the animation and lighting teams are typically separate departments that do their work without even talking to each other. They brought in frequent Coen Brothers cinematographer Roger Deakins (who is also listed as a visual consultant for Pixar's Wall-E) to give a talk on linking the lighting and animation steps--he ended up staying to supervise the whole project.

The end product has a dynamic use of light that reflects the dim, candlelit world of the Vikings in the story. While CG animation started out with very flat lighting (think: Toy Story), How to Train Your Dragon at times looks like an animated version of Barry Lyndon. Because of the cinematography and story (and perhaps the fact I got to see the whole thing), this movie impressed me the most. Even in an unfinished version, with the score and certain scenes only roughly animated, it had the most epic, timeless feel. Later, we found out that Steven Spielberg was responsible for one cluster of scenes at the end that were only barely sketched out in animation. The ending had recently been tweaked based on Spielberg's comment after a viewing--a change the directors quickly incorporated.

Beyond the cinematography, little details like hair were rendered with incredible detail. The odd thing with animation is that the closer it approaches

reality, the more hyperreal it looks. Getting the kind of definition

you'd see on natural hair makes it stand out instead of blend in.

Storywise, producer Bonnie Arnold called Hiccup, the film's protagonist, a "teaching hero," an "Obama-type" character because of his emphasis on change--a rather timely comparison. Because the movie is based on a series of children's books by Cressida

Cowell, the team had a J.K. Rowling level of detail to work with. At the press lunch, everyone from Jay Baruchel (voice of the lead, Hiccup) to producer Bonnie Arnold showed an

expansive knowledge of the film's world beyond what appears in

the movie. If How to Train Your Dragon is a success--and it should be--expect a sequel or two in the works.

Shrek Forever After continues to do what the franchise does best: pleasing both children and the parents sitting with them in the theatre. The fourth installment takes its inspiration from It's a Wonderful Life. The filmmakers

even have gambling, corrupt townspeople and partying witches (the PG

allusion to the prostitutes populating Pottersville). But instead of intervention-by-angel, it's all motivated by an evil creator of magical contracts in fairy tales: Rumpelstiltskin. For those that have watched the first three Shrek movies, the "what if" scenario will be a huge payoff, rewarding viewers for their investment in Shrek's world.

Megamind takes the trio of superhero, villain, and damsel in distress and turns it on its head. In this version, the villain is the center of the story, and it was hinted that he, not the superhero, ends up with the damsel in distress. With its snappy dialogue and voice performances from Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, and Brad Pitt, this movie appears to be the next step forward after last year's superhero tale Monsters vs. Aliens, which also played with the genre.

With so many movies in the works, DreamWorks Animation is poised to take advantage of the rising sucess of 3D movies at the box office. With a final sequel and two original titles releasing this year, one with definite franchise potential, the studio will be one to watch.

Slow but steady future for 3D films, says PricewaterhouseCoopers

By Sarah Sluis

The move to 3D, in terms of film history, should play out more like color than sound. All films transitioned from silent to sound in a snap--just a few years. To not convert was to become a box-office failure. But color, like 3D, was reserved for specific genres, like historical epics, fantasy, and children's movies, before becoming more widespread. I took a few of PricewaterhouseCoopers' predictions on the future of 3D movies and gave my own take on how it will all play out.

"Most 3D live-action production will be limited to sci-fi, horror and concert genres" Yes, but this is changing. Avatar is sci-fi, but it's also a tentpole, an awards hopeful, a James Cameron movie and an action/environmental/romance movie. As films with multiple genre identities are made in 3D, it will become easier for those "romance/action/comedy" movies to be made. Just today, Variety announced that the sequel to Zombieland, a horror/comedy will be filmed in 3D. The next Jackass sequel, a documentary/action/comedy, will be made in 3D. With its emphasis on live, improv events, Jackass is a cousin of the concert film, a popular choice for 3D, but certainty not part of the genre itself.

"3D-animated slates at Disney and DreamWorks will be closely scrutinized by rivals." Maybe. As far as I'm concerned, animation is already a lock for 3D. Animation is a medium grounded in fantasy, not reality, making 3D a very natural variation. I would worry if these animation studios decided to make a movie in 2D, which would indicate a slipping in 3D's profitability. As it stands, both Pixar and DreamWorks Animation are committed to producing all their upcoming films in 3D.

"Slow growth through 2014...because of lingering budgetary and creative concerns" You can look at this from the production side, but the audience side is just as important. A lot of people are resistant to seeing 3D movies because of their stereotype as a gimmicky concept that takes away from the narrative. That's not the case. As a former skeptic myself, watching movies like Coraline, Up, and even The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Experience "glasses on" made those movies better. In the case of concert movies, 3D helps amp up the spectacle and gives a heightened sense of reality. No, you don't actually feel like you're there, but the dimensionality gives you a sense of the landscape, and the camera movements always make sure you have the best seat in the house. Up, compared to Coraline or Monsters vs. Aliens, uses very restrained 3D. The filmmakers either didn't author it in 3D from start to finish, but added it in later, or they chose to avoid having the images pop up and behind in a striking (and perhaps detracting) way. Takeaway point: 3D is flexible. It's not always about making you think something is coming right at you, but subtly adding depth of field. If 3D is adopted by dramas, comedies, and romances, I suspect this restrained look will be the norm. Regardless, watching a film with glasses is on its way to becoming a normal part of the moviegoing experience.

'Zombieland' to take over theatres

By Sarah Sluis

Zombieland (3,036 theatres) is the top pick for #1 this weekend, since its blanket release puts it in nearly twice as many theatres as the other wide releases. The horror comedy "has its tongue planted

firmly in its rancid cheek while still delivering the visceral

goodies," and its twist on the horror genre should attract die-hard and sometimes horror fans alike.

The other three wide releases of the week are each opening in around 1,700 theatres, smaller-scale releases that match each of the movie's strategies.

Roller derby tale Whip It, which is already benefiting from positive word-of-mouth, will open in 1,720 theatres after sneaking in half that number last week. Women seem to love the movie, and opening smaller will put emphasis on its subsequent weekends rather than its opening weekend. Those that love the film (myself included) are struck by how it breathes life into the familiar coming-of-age genre. Critic Peter Brunette called it "familiar yet simultaneously different...loaded with clichs...but somehow writer Shauna Cross...manages to continually inflect the story with fresh twists."

Prepping for the release of Toy Story 3 in June, Toy Story and Toy Story 2 will be released as a 3D double feature in 1,745 theatres. The run is planned for two weeks, but will be extended based on performance. Industry insiders are pegging the film's opening in the $10 million range, but a re-release like this is so rare I wouldn't be surprised if normal tracking measures fail. The movie's biggest competitor is 3D animated Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which is going into its third week. The re-release will undoubtedly bump Cloudy from some of its 3D venues, which could affect both of the films' standing.

Ricky Gervais-Jennifer Garner comedy The Invention of Lying is also opening small (1,707 theatres), but perhaps that's indicative of its quality: low. Critic Rex Roberts called it a "self-indulgent, ultimately unsatisfying skit-that-won't-quit." Ouch.

On the specialty circuit, Capitalism: A Love Story expands to 962 theatres, its first wide expansion. LeBron James documentary More Than a Game, a "superb, slam-dunk documentary " that follows a quartet of talented basketball players, including James, through high school and beyond will also open in New York, Los Angeles, and Cleveland.

The Coen Brothers' A Serious Man, sure to appeal fans of the writer/director/producers, opens in New York, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis this weekend. Our critic Ethan Alter praised the "subtle, humorous way the film tackles such complex subjects as morality, faith and family," calling this personal, "darkly comic" film one of the Coens' best.

On Monday, we'll circle back to see how many viewers Zombieland infected, if audience members took the bait for The Invention of Lying, and how well word-of-mouth was built up for Whip It.