| . |
Ghosts of the Abyss (in IMAX 3D)
(Reviewed April 9, 2003)
-
Look, maybe it's just me, but I can't stand wearing the stupid 3D glasses that are required at movies like this. First of all, there is no way of knowing how clean the last person was who used them. (The lenses of the pair I got were smeared with a multitude of greasy fingerprints, probably from some syphilitic SARS victim with head lice.) Second, because I already wear glasses, I was worried that the high-dollar anti-reflective coating of my prescription lenses would be scratched by the constant rubbing of the greasy 3D plastic lenses against them--said "constant rubbing" being due to the fact that I never could find a comfortable position for the damned 3D glasses, and was aggravatedly fiddling with them for the entire length of the movie. (Thankfully, my Rx glasses seem to have suffered no ill effects.) Third, the science behind 3D glasses is, shall we say, still far from perfected. Honest to God, I would have preferred seeing this flick in regular "2D," rather than getting half-a-headache trying to crosseye myself into enjoying the dubious three-dimensional splendor of it all.
Not that there is much here worth seeing. Hey, I'm sorry, but at this point I am pretty thoroughly "Titanic"ed out. Watching director James Cameron go on a megabuck underwater adventure holiday with a bunch of rent-a-scientists doesn't float my boat (zing!).
Plus there is the fact that the movie is kind of a cheat. The advertising implies that you will be spending an hour (that's right, the thing is only an hour long, even though you will be paying an IMAX-premium ticket price) gazing upon previously unglimpsed nooks and crannies of the sunken carcass of the Titanic, and getting the creeps whilst doing so. Instead, most of the movie features Cameron and company (including narrator/"Titanic" star Bill Paxton) aboard a research ship and inside mini-submarines. "Ghosts of the Abyss" turns out to be a behind-the-scenes "making of" the kind of movie you actually will go into the theatre expecting to see. After watching Paxton utter some variation of the line, "Golly gosh wow, we're really seeing the Titanic" for about the fourth time, you will wish you were seeing a lot more of what he is seeing and a lot less of him.
But here is my biggest complaint about the movie: The actual camera footage of the "Titanic" turns out to be less enjoyable than watching the movie's computer simulations! Even the filmmakers seem to realize this. The most interesting segment in the movie, in which one mini robot-camera has to "rescue" another one that died inside the sunken ship's hull, is almost entirely shown in computer animation. In fact, the filmed parts of the movie are uniformly dull to anyone who is not a "Titanic" obsessive. As I listened to Cameron and Paxton marvel excitedly over things such as a stained-glass window, an iron gate, a wash basin and a bowler hat, I found myself peering through the murky darkness of the theatre to look at my diver's watch. If you know what I mean.
If this turns up on PBS, it might be worth a look, assuming nothing else is on. Plus the only head lice you will encounter at home will be from your own filthy, disgusting family.
APRIL 15, 2003, ADDENDUM: As if I needed another reason to dislike this movie, I now have read that all of the Bill Paxton "look at me in this claustrophobia-inducing mini-sub, marveling at all the never-before-glimpsed wonders outside the porthole and worrying about my safety" shots were FAKED. That's right, folks: According to the LA TIMES, every one of those shots was filmed later, NOT while the sub was underwater. Cheat, cheat, cheat.
Back Row Grade: D
(Return to index by closing this window)
|
. |