It's a movie I've watched a number of times, and it hits me hard every time, probably because my personality encompasses a bit of both men. My wife could always see past the front, and these days I count my blessings that family and some very good friends can too. At least I don't have to spend Thanksgiving alone.

I watched this the other day and I thought the film was excellent. Good review

Fred and Ginger are tripping the light fantastic in Carefree on TCM right now.

I saw that in 3D also but still wished I'd seen it in 2D. Hugo was okay.

Moana is excellent. Trolls is very meh

Confirmed 3D is the worst. I go out of my way to avoid it.

I hate 3d too and will always avoid. The only time I liked it and actually sought it out was for Gravity and in that instance it was spectacular.

I've never seen a 3d film, at least none I can remember.

I always find 3D movie bashing as weird. I've never been to a 3D movie and said to myself afterwards "I wished I had seen it in 2D". At worst it feels the same as a normal movie. In a lot of cases I enjoy it.

I'm guessing you are not big on cinematography.

I'm just interested in a good movie that I enjoy.

Real question here. How does it being, or not being, in 3D effect it?

This is really the same as asking how does the quality of the cinematography affect a movie.

I'm no film guru, so excuse my ignorance. I'm just asking how does it being in 3D automatically make it poor cinematography? All I see it doing is making the exact same thing on the screen 3D.

Had Citizen Kane been shot in 3D in exactly the same, would it now be seen as a movie without great cinematography?

Don't know about the cinematography but I'm projecting it would still be boring as **** even in 3D

It was the first movie that came up in Google when I searched movie with good cinematography

This and Gravity.

RIP Ron Glass, who played Shepherd Book in Firefly/Serenity, among many other great roles.

The Great Gatsby used 3D extremely well.

Money Monster

Ok, I'm going to write this, and hope I do not get struck down by the hand of god. George Clooney was not good in this far fetched movie. Wait for it. Hoooold! Ok, phew, I'm in the clear.

Jodie Foster is behind the camera for this one, and does some mediocre work directing Clooney and Julia Roberts. She's tried her hand at directing, and I think put in a solid effort with The Beaver, no matter what your thoughts are on Mel Gibson. Unfortunately, in this movie, she missed the mark far and wide.

Clooney plays a guy modeled after Jim Cramer, the host of Mad Money. It's a show about what you should invest your money into, but it's mainly there for entertainment, and buyer beware. Julia Roberts plays the producer of the show. Clooney starts off the show admitting that he may have made an error recently supporting a stock called IBIS, that fell dramatically a few days prior. In comes a guy with a gun and a bomb strapped to a vest who hijacks the show because he unfortunately took the stock tips seriously. Clooney, Roberts, and a couple of other stock characters have to figure out the real reason that the stock price fell before the average Joe blows everyone up.

What follows is one of the most preposterous sequence of events possible. At every decision point, I kept thinking 'that's not how it would play out." Every character is unconvincing, and every set piece seemed muddled and haphazardly put together. Clooney is fine as the arrogant host, but the second he has a gun pointed to his head, he overacts his fears like a scared 5 year old, or goes the opposite extreme and spews his venom like a Gordon Gecko wannabe. It's just not good work from him, and I don't say that lightly, because I think he's one of the finest actors we have. The conclusion is very unsatisfying. There's no real buildup of the work relationship that Clooney and Roberts have, so when this movie finishes, I had the unsatisfying thought of 'who cares.'

The movie is trying to make a statement about the state of our economy, and how the little man has no chance against the corporate giants. The Big Short made this point much better, and did it without any guns or bombs. Plus there was no Margot Robbie in a bubble bath in this movie.

Dom, (or anybody else with experience):

Are there people (not sure if it would be the actors themselves) who specialize in or are known for their skill in getting 'what you want' out of the directors?

I work in software, and there's a similar skill that's far too often overlooked. Can you, as the developer, not be just a code monkey, but ask the right questions and get down to the core of what the business people are trying to accomplish?

So I guess I'm asking whether there is some intermediary who knows how to translate the 'requirements' from the director into something the actors understand?

pretty epic fail by google to not suggest kubrick when asked about good cinematography.

if you want some more modern examples check out anything by roger deakins or watch children of men.

If that's really the case, then the 3D is pointless as it's not doing anything except darkening the image and draining your wallet more. There are examples of that in lazy 3D conversion of 2D movies, such as the Thor movies where the 3D was flat and the darkening effect of the glasses made it hard to see what was going on at times.

But proper 3D effects can be just as bad. When something leaps out at you, it will inevitably divert attention from the rest of the shot, or even worse can obstruct it to the point that you can't really see what's going on behind the 3D object. It also feels annoyingly intrusive for something to force itself on my vision the way 3D does. There was something obnoxious about the way Fantastic Beasts kept throwing flying insects or bricks or whatever into my eyes, demanding that I look.

I think what helps the 3D in Gravity work is that as the background to a scene is space, the 3D doesn't obscure any details and helps give space a sense of depth. That may be the one film where 3D provides a clearly better experience, although I haven't seen the 2D version.

Nerve - saw a trailer for this at another movie, marked it down as maybe something to watch, never saw it in theatres but rented it on demand to kill an evening.

Basic premise is there's a game, you choose to play or watch. If you watch, you pay and get to make the players do escalating dares. If you play, you do dares until you fail or bail, and successful dares get you money. Whoever has the most watchers at some designated time wins.

I thought it was a clever concept, but there's just something missing. The actors are decent, there's not too much in the way of unnecessary fluff, but the final message is presented pretty unsubtly. Deserved a better fate from the public IMO.

You raise good points. We just must have different experiences when watching 3D. In most cases when someone on the screen is in 3D they seem more life like to me. Much like seeing a person in person over looking at a photo of them.

I feel I'm in the movie more. Much like I feel more into a discussion with friends if they are sitting in front of me than say over Skype.

I do 100% agree with you on the cheap gimmicks of things coming at the screen.