So, at the risk of alienating all of those fans of mine who appreciate my consistency, I'm going to shake things up a bit and make one post for all four Shrek movies that came in a compilation with the 55" Samsung 3D LED HDTV I bought two months ago. I know, I know. Have I learned nothing from Webber's Percy Jackson folly not even one year ago? At least I think I have; while Webber summarized each of the five books in that series in great detail, sometimes spanning three or four paragraphs, I'll do my best to keep individual movie reviews short and sweet. Not quite "three sentence reviews" short, but like, five or six, max. (And while I'm at it, since I've already linked to two of the most shameful moments in this blog's history, here's Trev's "I quit" post about how bad Fable II was. Whew.) Anyway, I want to say a few words about the 3D experience before jumping into the individual recaps. For starters, yeah, 3D TV is definitely a fledgling technology. I'll assume most people reading this have by now seen at least one movie in 3D at a movie theater. Some enjoy the experience, and some don't (headaches, etc.) but the vast majority seem to agree that, good or bad, 3D doesn't actually change the movie-going experience very much. And I can tell you that it's pretty much the same story in your living room. There's one key advantage (3D!) and a few disadvantages in the tradeoff: less vibrant color, blurrier background image quality, and a screen that goes completely black if you turn your head on its side. Plus, in the long run, battery life on the glasses (and initial cost on the glasses - $150 or so a pair, though fortunately the bundle I bought included four pairs). One thing I found essential was turning on a setting on my TV called "AutoMotion Plus" or something similar. This setting interpolates the images you see and essentially increases the frame rate from 30 Hz to 60 Hz. For those of you not down with scientific and mathematical terms, AutoMotion Plus makes it so that you see sixty images per second instead of just thirty. That might sound like an irrelevant difference to you, but trust me; it's quite noticeable. And unless you're watching something animated, it's noticeable in a bad way. The Internet derides it as the "soap opera effect," and it makes it such that all film-based images suddenly look much less polished and, strangely enough, much cheaper. It's like looking at people through a window instead of on a TV screen, and we must all subconsciously think that staged scenes look all the more staged and awkward without the slightly-blurry effects of 30 Hz film because, well, man, everything feels like a shitty soap opera in 60 Hz AutoMotion Plus time. But in 3D mode, each of your eyes is only receiving every other image. By turning the soap opera effect on, then, you allow each eye to once again see thirty images per second, a rate that you are used to and thus comfortable with (whether you believe it or not). So, yeah. I found that watching stuff in 3D (at least, watching animated stuff like Shrek) just felt very blurry and laggy. That was really my biggest takeaway, aside from once other basic limitation of 3D TV: night time. You want to be watching 3D stuff with as little ambient light as possible. Not only will it make the images pop better, but it will also reduce glare on your TV screen (which looks even worse in 3D, of course) and, for some reason, the background looks a lot blurrier than the foreground during the day. I don't know why this is the case. Fortunately, watching movies at home has always lent itself better to the night time than the day time, so you really won't have to change your ways very much to reap the rewards. Finally, the question on everyone's mind: is 3D TV worth it? Again, it's a very fledgling technology. If you have a nice TV that you're happy with, I really wouldn't race out to buy a 3D one. But if you're like I was two months ago, looking for a nice new TV to last you at least five years, I'd recommend going 3D unless price is a huge issue. It may not be huge right now, but it's not going away anytime soon. Video games have started jumping aboard the trend, more and more Blu-rays are being released as 3D-compatible, and soon enough I'm sure we'll see some really cool stuff like the NFL in 3D or some sweet-looking 3D wildlife documentaries. Anyway, that's just my two cents. Now, if you still care enough, here are some mini-recaps of the four movies in the Shrek collection.
Shrek
I'll assume you've all seen the first movie in the franchise. I did, back in theaters in 2001, and I've always liked it but never truly loved it. Cute and funny, sure, but not really memorable in any important way. If it weren't for all of the sequels, we'd be remembering Shrek today as nothing more than a fun little movie with a talented vocal cast.
Shrek 2
I had only seen bits and pieces of this sequel before Samsung was kind enough to include it in my multi-thousand-dollar TV package. But the sum total was a tad disappointing. It just didn't have the same adventurous and epic feel to it that the first (and third and fourth) movie did. Shrek thinks he's not cut out to be Fiona's husband, and so he turns into a human being, and she turns back into one too, and then in the end true love conquers all and they both realize they're happier as ogres. Yawn. Why make an entire movie out of the same themes used to gracefully close the first movie in the final five minutes?
Shrek the Third
Shrek's gonna be a dad! And he's gonna be a king! So much pressure! How will he cope? He can't, and he won't. Shrek, Donkey, and Puss in Boots set sail to find Fiona's long-lost cousin so that he can rule as king. Meanwhile, with our trio of heroes away, Far Far Away Land gets attacked by an alliance of fairy tale villains. Captain Hook! Wicked witches! The Ents from The Lord of the Rings!(?) I kind of liked each tale on its own, but the combination of the two was incomplete and poorly tied together, especially given the ninety-minute running time. I think a few of the elements from this movie could have been included in the fairly light and boring second one and both movies would have benefitted. Instead, Shrek 2 was far too light and Shrek the Third far too busy.
Shrek Forever After
Finally, we conclude the story in It's a Wonderful Life fashion. Shrek is tired of his daily routine - wife, babies, celebrity status - and just wants to go back to being a simple ogre, running around terrorizing people. But, as Cinderella (the band, not the character) once said, "Don't know what you got 'til it's gone," and suddenly Shrek's granted wish for simpler times sends him to a world where all of his friends and loved ones are far worse off under the reign of Rumpelstiltskin. I actually really enjoyed this final chapter. It's not as if this Wonderful Life story model is anything new or creative, but the story at hand finally felt like the right size - not too boring, not too cluttered - and it was nice to see the series end on a high note.
Did I say end? Because, yeah, the Shrek story-arc has ended, but apparently there's a Puss in Boots spin-off (prequel?) in the works, due out as soon as this Thanksgiving. Eh, whatever. I won't be going out of my way to see it, but I doubt it's terrible. "I won't be seeing it, but I doubt it's terrible." What a ringing endorsement! Good bye, everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment