my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Chicken Little (2005) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Chicken Little (2005) Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 11-03-2005 04:35 AM                        I wasn't too impressed. Quite frankly, the only part of the movie I could say I enjoyed was the Barenaked Ladies song playing at the very beginning. That's a good song. I love the Barenaked Ladies. The pacing of the movie seemed a little odd. It's like, okay, when is it going to get into the story? There's an eighties-style montage, followed by the "big game" and "victory" ... 20 minutes into the film! It was cute, and had those cutesy little Disney moments that kids will eat up. I liked the voice casting. Fred Willard and Adam West steal the show, as far as I'm concerned. I saw the "Disney Digital 3D" presentation with our newly installed digital system. Granted, I'm coming from an IMAX 3D bias, but I was a little unimpressed with the 3D job. Nothing came OUT of the screen. It was all flush to the screen and receding from it, so it had a little depth, but nothing engrossing or pulling you into the film. The novely wore off soon, and the 3D really didn't improve the movie, or my experience of it. The circular polarization is pretty nifty, though. No matter how you turn your head, each eye still only sees what it's supposed to ... although, tilt too much and the 3D will still look screwy. NO EYE STRAIN for me! The clunky glasses, worn over my own prescription pair, got heavy by the end, but no big deal. With the polarizer and the glasses, even the silver screen doesn't make the image as bright as digital can be. The polarizer can be swiveled out of the way (for instance, for the 2D trailers) and you REALLY see the difference at how bright, colorful, and crisp a digital 2K image is. But the movie as a whole was just okay. I was impressed with the animation and story no more than I was at Shark Tale, which was ick. Run-of-the-mill CG cartoon feature, I thought. I don't think I fell asleep.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-03-2005 04:50 AM                        2K? That's it? My HDTV has that resolution.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 11-03-2005 05:11 AM                        Well, apparently the Sony 4K system had some server problems with all that streaming data, from what I heard. And Joe, you really don't need to justify your home system anymore. I think we all understand at this point just how it is!  |  IP: Logged Alex Grueneberg Expert Film Handler Posts: 125 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Aug 2004 posted 11-04-2005 04:14 AM                        I watched #4242 35mm print version earlier this evening. Brian, I completely agree with your statement regarding the pacing of the film. Personally, something just did not feel right. And what's up with all the montages? The whole time I kept thinking to my self "Gee, remember how The Incredibles started?... Lets watch that." The voice acting is top notch. I thought Zach Braff did a smashing job on the voice over for C. Little. Not too Disney if you know what I mean. The animation was very interesting to say the least. For example I noticed some great improvements, especially regarding shadowing with different levels of light. Something that struck me later in the film is some parts almost seemed to have almost to much going on, kind of like saying "look what we can do now!", or it was just all happening to quick but I could be wrong. On the audio side of things the DTS soundtrack sounds fantastic as always. For those of you who have multi-channel rear/surround speakers there are a couple of seens that completely utilized the 360 degree capabilities. It's a lot of fun. To my dismay, Chicken Little is 1.85 and personally I believe (well at least speaking for my flat) it suffers for that. Overall I had a few laughs and at least wasn't bored while I watched it. I'm still planning on hoping over to one of my competitors to check out the digital projected version. 2 out of 5. [ 11-06-2005, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Alex Grueneberg ]  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-04-2005 04:29 AM                     I was wholly unimpressed with this. The entire movie just felt like a sequel or remake, as there was nothing original or non-predictable. I'm sure it will do tons of business and the 3D gimmick will have people buying up tickets like crazy, but the movie is dumb and boring. 1 out of 5 stars  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 11-04-2005 10:21 AM                     quote: Brian Michael Weidemann I love the Barenaked Ladies I love barenaked ladies too....especially brunettes  |  IP: Logged Don Anderson Master Film Handler Posts: 312 From: West Bend, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-04-2005 12:40 PM                     I found it to be a little violent for the age bracket it is geared towards. Little kids might be kinda freaked out by the aliens/spider creatures. Overall, I chuckled a bit, and was impressed with the detail/textures. The music tracks didn't seem to match anything on screen. In other words.....leave the songs out! Boring for adults, somewhat enjoyable for older kids 6-8. Much better than Valiant!!!!  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2005 01:13 PM                        I'm hoping this is a middling hit, but not a super blockbuster -- that way, Disney will likely get back in bed with Pixar and the stars will be aligned again.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 11-04-2005 08:52 PM                        quote: Brad Miller the 3D gimmick will have people buying up tickets like crazy Well, not particularly. I watched some customers come through, not knowing which version they had tickets for, since we also have a 35mm print in another auditorium. We're charging an extra buck for "Disney Digital 3D". I didn't get a huge "Oh wow we have to see the 3D one!" vibe from patrons. But the weekend is still early ...  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-04-2005 09:27 PM                        Did the 3D thing really bring them in droves for Spy Kids? Has 3D ever helped a movie ever by significant proportions? To me it would be annoying to watch anything longer than 20 minutes or so in 3D. Retarded.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-04-2005 09:47 PM                     But Joe, this is "Disney Digital 3D". Did you miss the "digital" part of that???  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-05-2005 12:28 PM                        It was better than I expected. It's not going to age as well as the classic Disney films or the Pixar films though. The story is kind of lame and forced. This movie will help to encourage the Disney stockholders to demand that they re-up with Pixar. Disney pulled the basic boner here -- they sunk all the $$$ into the picture, and not enough into the story. When the biggest laugh in the movie is the line "Tinkle? Piddle? Wizz? Wee-wee?" you know the movie is in trouble. I think word of mouth on this will be good generally, since the kids are really enthralled with it. 2 out of 5 for me. [ 11-06-2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-07-2005 05:21 PM                     I viewed this at the Buffalo Theatre screen 1 in Buffalo, WY on opening day... Presentation was excellent there. I was very disapointed overall with the movie. The characters had a definate lack of likeability that the Pixar film characteres always have.... and right away. They ripped off the alien Tribble idea froom Star Trek TV show, and there were many other ideas literally ripped from other films as well, overall there's no originality going on here. As I sat there watching I kept wishing for this to have been done with the Looney Tunes Characters... I just thought it was way overblown with a thin story line and characters that never seemed to really get off the ground much. On the other hand I wonder how the 35mm prints hold up to their digital counterpart... The 35mm I watched looked excellent, was sharp as sa tack and I kept wondering to myself if the digitals looked near this good.... 2 Stars  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-07-2005 09:52 PM                    quote: Joe Redifer Has 3D ever helped a movie ever by significant proportions? It helped Polar Express. Or maybe it was IMAX that helped it... hard to say I guess. Anyway, I finally got to see this, and it was the 3D version. Brand new install at the Regal King Of Prussia in PA. The movie was ok, but it's all been done before. Disney really needs to come up with a good story first before they try to make another movie, but that's just my suggestion. As for the digital projection, it was better than I expected it would be. The colors were very rich to the point of looking almost unrealistic in the live action trailers. The picture was nice and bright on what I imagine is a brand new silver screen. Although I'm not sure why I could see what I can only describe as a "texture" on the screen. I've seen this several times on silver screens, so I'm not sure if it's normal or not. But no big distraction really. I didn't notice any pixelization at all from about 2/3 back from the screen. And the 3D... also, better than I expected, although they could have taken better advantage of it I think. (Make sure you stay for the scene after the credits!) My only gripe with the 3D is that there's a strobing effect that results from the "field sequential" nature of alternating the frames on the screen. Yes, even at 148 frames a second or whatever it is, you can still see a bit of jumpiness in the image when things whip around the screen. And since the latest fad in cartoons these days is for the action to whip around as fast as possible.... well, it was kinda hard to focus on the characters that were whipping around. I wonder if this would be the case with a live action movie that was actually shot in 3D (not converted from 2D) and then presented this way. Since cartoons generally don't have very good motion blur, maybe live action would look better. We'll have to wait and see on that I guess. As for the 3D "ghosting" between the eyes, the only time I saw this (and I was looking through most of the movie) was during the credits when acorns and other objects were floating up against a black background, and even then, it was VERY hard to spot. Some interesting things we noticed... turning the classes around backwards didn't flip the images, or even keep them the same. In fact, when you do that, both eyes get through both lenses. Weird. To flip the images, you actually have to turn the glasses upside down. When I got home, I put the glasses on and looked in a mirror. With linear polarized glasses, if you close one eye while doing that, you can see your open eye, and not the closed eye. With these, you can see your closed eye, and not your open eye. Also weird. As an aside, can someone please explain how circular polarization works? I'd love to know. Another question... it looked to us like the bulb stays on in the projector between shows. Is that true? Or were we seeing things?  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 11-07-2005 10:10 PM                        Yes, even in live action 3D, quickly moving things, especially in foreground, tend to have a strobing or flickering effect. I did notice that Chicken Little had this a few times. I noticed that with the glasses, too. I asked the Dolby tech guy how circular polarization worked, but his answer wasn't much help. I was interested more in the behavior of the light and electrodynamics than the mechanics of the the LCD polarizer rotation thingamabobber.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.