Gemini Man (2019)

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Rizor

But I like the supporting cast which includes Mary Elizabeth Winstead (maybe the real reason to see this in HFR 3D?)

She's the reason I sprung for the 3D version.

[MifuneFan]

It's a bit of a shame this couldn't be more polished, and therefore better received as I do think it left the door open to sequels in the future. Imagine a movie where

[Show spoiler]there's not just two Will Smiths, but dozens of them? Perhaps it would play out like that scene from The Matrix Reloaded with hundreds of Agent Smiths (Smith, hah), but it would be a very cool team-up to see the old and young versions fighting side by side, with the help of Winstead's character. It'll of course never happen.

[TitusTroy]

Will Smith's 'Gemini Man' is a $75 million flop

Will Smith's new sci-fi action thriller Gemini Man could cost its studio a massive $75 million loss, following another terrible weekend at the box office...the movie opened in China over the weekend, and it was hoped that the world's second biggest movie-going market could pull things back from the brink, but it seems it has flopped there too

Add on a significant amount for marketing and advertising, and Paramount Pictures, Skydance, Jerry Bruckheimer Films and Chinese film group Alibaba Pictures is looking down the barrel of a $75 million loss...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...n-loss-1247292

[John The Grudge]

24fps is stupid. Every film should be shot at 120fps. Modern OLED TVs have a native 120fps refresh rate. Motion is really rubbish at 24fps. It's hilarious reading reviews for this. They all seem to go over the top lauding how wonderful 24fps is and how fake anything higher looks. There's bugger all cinematic about crappy jerky motion.

[Damon1281]

I liked the HFR. To me, the obvious stuttering particularly in panning shots at 24 frames, look like crap. Maybe they could find a rate that smoothed that out but avoided the soap opera affect. How about 35 FPS?

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Damon1281

I liked the HFR. To me, the obvious stuttering particularly in panning shots at 24 frames, look like crap. Maybe they could find a rate that smoothed that out but avoided the soap opera affect. How about 35 FPS?

Even in 30fps (such as Oklahoma!’s 70mm version, which is included on the Blu Ray) I think there are hints of the soap opera effect or making the set more apparent (kinda works for this as it is based on a Broadway play and feels closer to that in the interior sets).

Despite sometimes apparent blur in panning shots, I love the look of 24fps, and even traditional shot on film movies (don’t want to see everything become digitally filmed), though I do think HFR is very immersive and an interesting experience that I would like to see used on select films going forward, it’s not like every movie has to look the same.

[pwarner184]

Aye, the frame rate stuff wasn't the issue; the issue was the dull, dull film it had been bolted onto.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by John The Grudge

24fps is stupid. Every film should be shot at 120fps. Modern OLED TVs have a native 120fps refresh rate. Motion is really rubbish at 24fps. It's hilarious reading reviews for this. They all seem to go over the top lauding how wonderful 24fps is and how fake anything higher looks. There's bugger all cinematic about crappy jerky motion.

24p is what gives things the "cinematic look" we're all so used to and moving into HFR throws that out the window for most folks which is why it's not going anywhere. Stuff in HFR ends up getting a "Soap Opera" effect and it will not let you hide certain things 24p could mask per the posts above if you get it wrong.

To me, as mentioned by James Cameron, HFR is a tool best used for specific scenarios. HFR also has its uses outside Hollywood movies relying on 24p for their cinematic look and feel. So you might find HFR much more applicable to sports and nature documentary content.

[testmon112]

Its' weird because when it comes to motion, spectacle and action. I really like 120fps/HFR. Watching football and sports at 60fps is great. But when it comes to heavy dialogue scenes, it really does expose the production design, costumes, props and exposes the whole 'illusion' of it all.

[John The Grudge]

This is a decent demonstration of the problem with lower frame rates. It's not blur but a horrid jerkiness when objects move across the screen.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates#c...=stars&pps=960

[Frank TJ Mackey]

How bad was this thing? I have a feeling I'm going to slightly enjoy it based on how much everyone says it sucks.

Ang Lee is no longer a big deal to me and I don't care about 3D or frame rate. I wonder if it's worth seeing at all on normal home video when it drops....

[AFFanAttic]

Originally Posted by Frank TJ Mackey

How bad was this thing? I have a feeling I'm going to slightly enjoy it based on how much everyone says it sucks.

Ang Lee is no longer a big deal to me and I don't care about 3D or frame rate. I wonder if it's worth seeing at all on normal home video when it drops....

It's just a really flat script, and the younger Will Smith fluctuates from looking totally passable to outright bizarre.

I thought it was interesting to see it in high frame rate. I'm relieved that I had an easier time with it than I did The Hobbit like ten years ago. Outside of that tech-demo purpose though, it feels like a story that didn't go through nearly enough development. Which is crazy considering the script or story has been floating around since like the 90's.

It's not hilariously bad, but I say Redbox it or whatever if you're already darkly curious as to how much of a misfire it is.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Frank TJ Mackey

How bad was this thing? I have a feeling I'm going to slightly enjoy it based on how much everyone says it sucks.

Ang Lee is no longer a big deal to me and I don't care about 3D or frame rate. I wonder if it's worth seeing at all on normal home video when it drops....

Without the 3D/HFR, it's just a direct-to-video action movie. The technical bells-and-whistles are what make it worth watching at all.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Without the 3D/HFR, it's just a direct-to-video action movie. The technical bells-and-whistles are what make it worth watching at all.

I'd agree with that. I kinda didn't mind the story, but it felt like something that we might have seen in the 90's, or early 2000's, which makes sense given how long the movie had been in development.

[Cremildo]

[aiman04]

I hope someone will have a good script to shoot in HFR.

[Stanis]

This is streaming for Prime members, included in this month's promo. The story is really by the numbers. There's a lot of uncanny valley too, not as bad as some movies though. Will Smith's character(s) are so boring action movie, no wit or charm at all. The frame rate on Amazon I assume is 24p (which I prefer), but it also made it very apparant during the fight sequences that they speed up and slow down the editing of punches/kicks to make them swifter, kind of like in old James Bond films. At first I thought it was a higher fps due to this, but I think it was a choice by the editors, they did it a lot with the Younger Smith, maybe to avoid the issues with The Irishman where no matter how young you made De Niro look with a computer, he moved like a geriatric case? Anyway, my 2 cents, movie in general was extremely meh, not horrible.

[levcore]

I don't think the fight scenes are sped up, it's just the digital doubles being animated that way.

[Jar Jar Stinks]

I watched this on Hulu last night. I'm not a fan of Will Smith, yet I enjoyed it quite a bit. Not sure why it gets so much hate. I thought the story was fine. There were some good action sequences and the effects looked credible to me.