|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sing
|
Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler
Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013
|
posted 12-28-2016 08:27 PM
Theater: Pacific Sherman Oaks 5, Sherman Oaks, CA
Screen: 1
Presentation: 35mm flat, Dolby Digital
Presentation plusses: Film is beautiful and this is a lovely print. Common-height masking is used, so we sat close. The digital sound was actually working. It could've been brighter but was quite decent.
Presentation minuses: the screen is crap, with small seam splits in 2 places, plus damage markings. Volume too low. No bass to speak of. I wanna hear this in ATMOS! But the novelty of seeing this on film was worth it.
Presentation rating: 2 of 4 stars; film is lovely, but this is not film at it's best (though no scratches is a plus).
Movie rating: 3 of 4 stars, surprisingly
Plot summary: producer and theatre owner Buster Moon tries to save his bad fortunes by staging a singing competition starring local amateur talents. You-know-what ensues.
This movie is the follow-on to Illumination's "Secret Life of Pets," and not only does it again star all manner of animals, but the levels of detail they've gone to with their animation struck me at times as being astounding. (We used to get that feeling only from Disney or Pixar, but the playing field is now, as you know, much larger.) While it takes awhile for the plot momentum to get going, it's never really slow, and there are laugh-out-loud moments. Better still, in this age of persistently non-musical musicians or injection-molded Radio Disney "kid hits," I found the sound track to be very, very smart. Not only are few songs around long enough to become annoying, their production values are so smart and the song choices and placement so deftly handled that I'd dare say that the whole is satisfyingly greater than the sum of its parts. The plot? Sure, you know there's going to be a happy ending, and there are some other predictabilities. However, the process of getting there was so memorable and musical that we found ourselves enjoying some of the moments of triumph with goosebumps.
Call me an old sap, or because I'm a musician, unfairly biased. But I'm a classically-trained musician, and the pop music (and a few famous classical nuggets) in this soundtrack struck me as providing a something-for-everyone experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler
Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013
|
posted 12-31-2016 07:31 PM
Theater: Universal Citywalk AMC, Universal City, CA
Screen: 13
Presentation: 2K movie, Christie Laser, 2D on a dual-head 3D projector. Immersive sound speakers everywhere but we never noticed them being used (not that they weren't, but nothing localized clearly enough for us to be sure that they were on). Common-width room. (They probably all are.)
Presentation plusses: Love the color and contrast range of this technology. I've been saying for awhile that Laser is what will finally get me to stop missing film, and this looked really, really good. The screen is flawless. The masking was flawless. The recliners were comfy. This cineplex remodel is enviable; I went to this place when it was new in 1987 and the quality and expense of the upgrade is impressive.
Presentation minuses: it actually could've been louder! The bass from screen 12 next door playing "Rogue One" was often obviously bleeding through the wall, typically louder than the bass from our screen. The trailers were nicely loud. The feature wasn't. The bottom 3% of the left half of the picture was dimmer than the rest because the bottom imager of the projector wasn't high enough for the edge to clear the port window. Sloppy install. Laser sparkles and therefore doesn't look as smooth as film. The bottom left portion of the image was not as sharp as the rest, which was otherwise lovely.
Presentation rating: 3.5 of 4 stars; I really wanted the sound to amaze me and it didn't; window misalignment is just stupid.
Considering that my local dim-bulb Edwards is $14 for a prime-time show and this is half again as much, I suppose you get what you pay for. Flaws and all, this absolutely blew Edwards away in every way. As it should.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic