Of all the complaints leveled at the 3D movie fad since its resurgence, the most potent is that the added dimension actually restricts rather than enhances the visual experience. The effect often gives the film a dim, grungy look, and unless the film takes place completely in daylight (as in Piranha), some scenes may be downright hard to see.
This may be why the critical and audience response to Sanctum was so fierce. Executive-produced by James Cameron, and touted as having been filmed with the same 3D effect as Avatar, Sanctum does not appear to be an ideal 3D movie. Most of it takes place in dimly lit underground caves, and a good deal of it takes place underwater. An added 3D effect would no doubt make dark scenes even darker and more difficult to view.
I watched Sanctum on an HDTV in 2D, and it's fine. It's a perfectly formulaic thriller, but it delivers. It has a couple of key performances by Richard Roxburgh and Rhys Wakefield, playing a father-and-son exploring team. Their relationship is right out of the boy-does-good-for-dad book, but the two actors have an exceptional chemistry. Ioan Gruffudd (pronounced "Ian McKellen") is on hand as a buffoonish villain.
Sanctum is hardly the first film I've been grateful to avoid in 3D and view in the correct dimensions. My Soul to Take, which takes place in almost perpetual night, would have been horrid to sit through with the glasses on, but in 2D it's an entertaining little scare flick. It will surely not be the last clue that the 3D fad is a nonstarter, and on its way out.
20. Priest (2011): Jan. 30
21. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009): Jan. 31
22. Masked and Anonymous (2003): Feb. 1
23. Sanctum (2011): Feb. 2
24. Red State (2011): Feb. 4
**P.S. Shortly after writing and posting this, I read that Sanctum's co-writer and producer, Andrew Wight, recently died in a helicopter crash in Australia while filming a documentary. He will be missed, and the film he left behind was quite entertaining.**
No comments:
Post a Comment