Pompeii 3D Blu-ray (2014) [Region Locked / Free]

[keb33509]

Oh yeah, definitely. I believe it will be eye candy!

[max041104]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

well I plan on seeing it

Originally Posted by keb33509

I really want to see it too, did you not notice I said I hope it does well. It's on my most anticipated list of 2014.

@Zivouhr - it's definitely not going for historical accuracy. No one survived the real event, except some who evacuated before it erupted.

i am looking forward to it, actually got the wife interested in it when i told her that Jon Snow from GOT was starring in it. i'm looking forward to seeing Babydoll and if anything, getting to see one of the most deadly volcano eruptions in history in 3D will be worth it.

[Zivouhr]

Good point. The ash and debris erupting from the Volcano of Pompeii could be epic in strong 3D, stuff popping out of the screen every few seconds.

I hope it amps up the pop outs and 3D more than Wrath of the Titan's main Volcanic Giant did. I have to rewatch Wrath 3D again now, just to watch that volcano scene again to prep for Pompeii 3D.

[keb33509]

A little bit of pop is nice, but I actually enjoy a strong sense of depth. Helps with the "grand" scale of things, especially something like a volcano.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Good point. The ash and debris erupting from the Volcano of Pompeii could be epic in strong 3D, stuff popping out of the screen every few seconds.

I hope it amps up the pop outs and 3D more than Wrath of the Titan's main Volcanic Giant did. I have to rewatch Wrath 3D again now, just to watch that volcano scene again to prep for Pompeii 3D.

couldn't agree more with this

[Zivouhr]

Yeah, here's hoping the volcano scene delivers the 3D. Kind of like Anderson did for the Ax Man in the rain/shower stalls fighting Milla and her friend.

[Chaotic]

Great 3D, especially in the opening. Fun movie.

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Great 3D, especially in the opening. Fun movie.

Sweet, glad to hear it.

[mseeley]

Saw this in 3D at Cinemark. Really liked the movie and the 3d is absolutely amazing already one of the best 3d films I've seen this year and one of the best 3d movies I've seen period. The volcanic finale is stunning to behold! Good simple story and pretty well acted too, with a surprisingly awesome and scene stealing perfomance from Kiefer Sutherland as the villain. Big thumbs up from me!

[Chaotic]

Sutherland was awesome. Over the top but he makes a good villian. Weird that he has a big part but he was never in any of the trailers and tv spots.

[Zivouhr]

Quick Review of Pompeii 3D:
In an effort to push 3D towards Strong 3D, I will be critical but constructive in the 3D review of Pompeii 3D by Paul WS Anderson, who did a great job with the 3D in Resident Evil Afterlife.

Preview 3D trailer: The 2nd newest trailer of Amazing Spider Man 2 3D. Upper medium 3D. Really nice and looks like fun. Can't wait for May and I wasn't a big fan of the first one.

Pompeii 3D: The movie's first hour involves a lot of dialog and politics with conflict that builds very slowly over the course of the film, into the epic, grand finale that actually saves the film for me. Once the arena battle

[Show spoiler] finally took place around the pillar with the two main gladiators, I got into the movie and enjoyed the rest of the film.

3D of Pompeii: Oh man, I was hoping Paul WS Anderson would carry the torch for Filming 3D since he's a big supporter of 3D filming, but if we compare this to Avatar (filmed strong 3D mostly) or Pacific Rim (converted strong 3D), a huge percentage of Pompeii 3D is MILD 3D I'm sad to say. Don't believe it? Flip up your 3D glasses during the first 3/4 of the film, and the double image separation (of the two camera angles) is bare minimum to the point you could watch this without 3D glasses in most shots. Very disappointed until the 3D kicked in in the final act, during the pretty good Arena Battle and the epic and awesome Volcanic Conclusion, where the 3D amped up to medium, to upper medium 3D.

Viewed at a Cinemark 3D theater, and the 3D preview for Amazing SpiderMan 3D surpassed the 3D in Pompeii 3D.

-3D Layering: 6/10. Mild 3D most of the way. The final act amps up to medium 3D thankfully. Very disappointing 3D in the first 3/4 of the film. Not every shot, but most shots. This reminds me of the mild 3D shots from Amazing Spiderman 1.
-Best 3D: The final act.
-Pop Outs: 6/10. The rain looks good, the ash looks great, but not many pop outs otherwise.
-3D Planning: 8/10. A good sense of fore, mid and background 3D layout. The 3D, though mild, was not an afterthought.
-3D Final: 6/10. Disappointed in the 3D.

3D in Pompeii is Better than the mild 3D in Clash of the Titans 3D
3D in Pompeii is Not as good as the stronger 3D in the recent Legend of Hercules.

I really think Paul WS Anderson has settled into a comfort zone with his 3D presentation, and sadly is not pushing for strong 3D anymore if this is his latest example of 3D. Remember how the layers pop out from one another in Avatar or Pacific Rim? Not in Pompeii. Things are more flat here.

For RE6, Paul WS Anderson really needs to AMP up the 3D and stop leaving the Interaxial distance between the 3D Camera rig set to default for every shot. It's like he got a close up shot of Kit Harrington in medium 3D, then used that 3D setting for the rest of the movie pretty much. Every shot deserves its own 3D camera setting for maximum 3D strength.
EDIT: If he leaves the same 3D camera rig setting for farther out medium ranged shots (of the height of a person in frame for example in a setting), the 3D will look mild at best. Then when he zooms in, the 3D will amp up to medium 3D.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

It's weird how Anderson did quite well with his first 3D movie but has fallen off the wagon so dramatically. He needs a new stereographer who will challenge him to get the best 3D out of a shot. Loyalty is nice but sometimes you have to replace someone if they aren't performing. Hopefully Anderson returns to the quality of Afterlife's 3D or exceeds... or I will probably give up on him.

Agreed. There was a lot of potential here and while the finale' was nicely done for the 3D, there was plenty of room for strong 3D that didn't happen in Pompeii. And way too much mild 3D.

Filming in live action 3D is a big challenge, but it can be done so every shot within reason (distance shots will naturally look more mild because of the natural distance away) results in strong 3D.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Quick Review of Pompeii 3D:
In an effort to push 3D towards Strong 3D, I will be critical but constructive in the 3D review of Pompeii 3D by Paul WS Anderson, who did a great job with the 3D in Resident Evil Afterlife.

Preview 3D trailer: The 2nd newest trailer of Amazing Spider Man 2 3D. Upper medium 3D. Really nice and looks like fun. Can't wait for May and I wasn't a big fan of the first one.

Pompeii 3D: The movie's first hour involves a lot of dialog and politics with conflict that builds very slowly over the course of the film, into the epic, grand finale that actually saves the film for me. Once the arena battle

[Show spoiler] finally took place around the pillar with the two main gladiators, I got into the movie and enjoyed the rest of the film.

3D of Pompeii: Oh man, I was hoping Paul WS Anderson would carry the torch for Filming 3D since he's a big supporter of 3D filming, but if we compare this to Avatar (filmed strong 3D mostly) or Pacific Rim (converted strong 3D), a huge percentage of Pompeii 3D is MILD 3D I'm sad to say. Don't believe it? Flip up your 3D glasses during the first 3/4 of the film, and the double image separation (of the two camera angles) is bare minimum to the point you could watch this without 3D glasses in most shots. Very disappointed until the 3D kicked in in the final act, during the pretty good Arena Battle and the epic and awesome Volcanic Conclusion, where the 3D amped up to medium, to upper medium 3D.

Viewed at a Cinemark 3D theater, and the 3D preview for Amazing SpiderMan 3D surpassed the 3D in Pompeii 3D.

-3D Layering: 6/10. Mild 3D most of the way. The final act amps up to medium 3D thankfully. Very disappointing 3D in the first 3/4 of the film. Not every shot, but most shots. This reminds me of the mild 3D shots from Amazing Spiderman 1.
-Best 3D: The final act.
-Pop Outs: 6/10. The rain looks good, the ash looks great, but not many pop outs otherwise.
-3D Planning: 8/10. A good sense of fore, mid and background 3D layout. The 3D, though mild, was not an afterthought.
-3D Final: 6/10. Disappointed in the 3D.

3D in Pompeii is Better than the mild 3D in Clash of the Titans 3D
3D in Pompeii is Not as good as the stronger 3D in the recent Legend of Hercules.

I really think Paul WS Anderson has settled into a comfort zone with his 3D presentation, and sadly is not pushing for strong 3D anymore if this is his latest example of 3D. Remember how the layers pop out from one another in Avatar or Pacific Rim? Not in Pompeii. Things are more flat here.

For RE6, Paul WS Anderson really needs to AMP up the 3D and stop leaving the Interaxial distance between the 3D Camera rig set to default for every shot. It's like he got a close up shot of Kit Harrington in medium 3D, then used that 3D setting for the rest of the movie pretty much. Every shot deserves its own 3D camera setting for maximum 3D strength.
EDIT: If he leaves the same 3D camera rig setting for farther out medium ranged shots (of the height of a person in frame for example in a setting), the 3D will look mild at best. Then when he zooms in, the 3D will amp up to medium 3D.

Dang that's harsh. I thought the 3d was medium to strong consistently throughout the whole film. And while the 3d may not be as in your face impressive as RE5, it still looked wonderful to my eye and I would not say at talk that Anderson's 3d has gotten worse. I'd say it's gotten better with each successive film (and RE4 is still one of my absolute favorite 3d movies) and re5 for me was a 3d career highlight for Anderson imo, and I'd put Pompeii in that same league as well.

[BleedOrange11]

Thanks for the review Zivouhr.

I still like Anderson's work because, like you said, he uses native 3D and does a great job planning out his sets and storyboards and visual effects to take advantage of stereo. But if he increased the depth strength a little and improved the roundness of his characters in all shots, his movies would really stand out as something special.

I think you are right about not taking enough time to set proper interaxials for each camera. From watching his previous movies, they seem to have a safe, preset number that gets distributed to multiple cameras shooting each take, which is really a shame. And yeah, that is definitely what plagued Amazing Spider-man's non-animated 3D as well (although I think their settings were worse).

It's too bad so many directors are willing to sacrifice quality for reduced time on set. I get that they need some quality control over the 3D coming in from multiple cameras, but wouldn't it be better to teach the camera operators to set approximately the level of roundness desired for each take? I wonder if that's partially why IMAX 3D and 1950s/80s 3D is consistently so much stronger--because, besides wanting to create strong 3D, the director only has a couple of cameras to keep track of. Anyways, you'd think these guys would figure out that a lot of their 3D looks like cardboard cutouts during dailies and make some changes. Hopefully, X-Men and Sin City will show us how it's done.

[Chaotic]

I hope the BD has a lenticular cover. It would be cool if it shows the volcano and then when you move it, its erupting.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Saw this in 3D at Cinemark. Really liked the movie and the 3d is absolutely amazing already one of the best 3d films I've seen this year and one of the best 3d movies I've seen period. The volcanic finale is stunning to behold! Good simple story and pretty well acted too, with a surprisingly awesome and scene stealing perfomance from Kiefer Sutherland as the villain. Big thumbs up from me!

Can I just ask (and this is not a criticism I wish I could enjoy every piece of garbage I put myself through simply because I like 3D) but have you ever seen a 3D film or indeed ANY film that you DIDN'T like?

[Jay Ellis]

Don't listen to the over analysis. This is a fantastic experience in 3D. Anderson should be given major kudos for implementing 3D so well that it's practically a requirement to see the movie. Comparing this visual marvel to ASM 1 is nonsense. Go see the movie if you haven't already.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

Don't listen to the over analysis. This is a fantastic experience in 3D. Anderson should be given major kudos for implementing 3D so well that it's practically a requirement to see the movie. Comparing this visual marvel to ASM 1 is nonsense. Go see the movie if you haven't already.

Right on!

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Can I just ask (and this is not a criticism I wish I could enjoy every piece of garbage I put myself through simply because I like 3D) but have you ever seen a 3D film or indeed ANY film that you DIDN'T like?

Legend of Hercules. Truly awful movie x(

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Dang that's harsh. I thought the 3d was medium to strong consistently throughout the whole film. And while the 3d may not be as in your face impressive as RE5, it still looked wonderful to my eye and I would not say at talk that Anderson's 3d has gotten worse. I'd say it's gotten better with each successive film (and RE4 is still one of my absolute favorite 3d movies) and re5 for me was a 3d career highlight for Anderson imo, and I'd put Pompeii in that same league as well.

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

Don't listen to the over analysis. This is a fantastic experience in 3D. Anderson should be given major kudos for implementing 3D so well that it's practically a requirement to see the movie. Comparing this visual marvel to ASM 1 is nonsense. Go see the movie if you haven't already.

I am glad you each enjoyed the film and the 3D in Pompeii. And there's nothing bad about a difference of opinion. No one has to be right as it's all based on perception and personal preferences of the 3D. You have the right to your views.


----------
The 3D at the end was nicely done, but if the goal is Strong 3D for most of the film along the lines of Avatar, Pacific Rim, Jurassic Park, Flying Swords of Dragon Gate and other strong 3D titles, it's best to flip up the glasses during the movie being compared to check the double image separation. If it looks like minimal separation (almost like watching a clear 2D movie) that's usually a firm indicator of mild 3D.
In the days of Glasses free 3DTV, that test might not be an option since we won't be wearing glasses and the image will already be 3D.

I would love every movie to have medium to strong 3D if 3D is offered. Mild 3D films hurt the 3D industry. It's one reason why we often hear "3D sucks, it's not worth wearing 3D glasses for," if that was the first and last experience the new 3D audience member experienced. Thinking back to the backlash 3D got from the release of the mostly mild 3D in Clash of the Titans, right after 3D gained momentum in 2009 from Avatar 3D. The mild 3D in Clash didn't help things.

The double image separation in Avatar, Pacific Rim, etc, is pretty strong; indicating strong 3D when the two glasses frames blend them together.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thanks for the review Zivouhr.

I still like Anderson's work because, like you said, he uses native 3D and does a great job planning out his sets and storyboards and visual effects to take advantage of stereo. But if he increased the depth strength a little and improved the roundness of his characters in all shots, his movies would really stand out as something special.

I think you are right about not taking enough time to set proper interaxials for each camera. From watching his previous movies, they seem to have a safe, preset number that gets distributed to multiple cameras shooting each take, which is really a shame. And yeah, that is definitely what plagued Amazing Spider-man's non-animated 3D as well (although I think their settings were worse).

It's too bad so many directors are willing to sacrifice quality for reduced time on set. I get that they need some quality control over the 3D coming in from multiple cameras, but wouldn't it be better to teach the camera operators to set approximately the level of roundness desired for each take? I wonder if that's partially why IMAX 3D and 1950s/80s 3D is consistently so much stronger--because, besides wanting to create strong 3D, the director only has a couple of cameras to keep track of. Anyways, you'd think these guys would figure out that a lot of their 3D looks like cardboard cutouts during dailies and make some changes. Hopefully, X-Men and Sin City will show us how it's done.

Very good points. It's true that it takes a lot more work and time to adjust the distance of the twin cameras on the set for every shot, but it gets easier the more it's done and the end strong 3D quality pays off.

If Anderson, who is making the final decisions on the 3D depth, amps up the 3D for EVERY SHOT in the future, aiming for strong 3D instead of settling for "Leave the 3D at this default setting for a lot of the shots", then we'll be in great 3D shape for his future 3D films. Strong 3D looks so much more appealing than mild 3D IMO and makes wearing the 3D glasses worth it.