News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Sunday, July 5, 2009

BD impressions: My Bloody Valentine 3D

2:35 PM / BD Impressions / 8 Comments

My good friend the Baron informs me that the original My Bloody Valentine has the reputation of being one of the better examples of the 80s slasher cycle. This could well be the case, but conversely the 2009 remake is one of the worst examples of the 00s revival of said sub-genre. I suspect that the soul purpose of this limp, lazy remake was to play around with digital cameras and show off the 3D effects upon which virtually every shot hinges. At least, I'm assuming this to be the case because there really is absolutely nothing else of any note to be found in this clumsy and pointless film, chock full of bad acting, dreadful dialogue, non-existent characterisation, inept camerawork and clumsily staged action.

I know what you're going to say: "This wasn't meant to be the next Citizen Kane/The Godfather/Profondo rosso (delete as appropriate) - just check your brain in at the door and enjoy the fun." Personally, I think I'm more than capable of switching off my brain and lapping up some mindless entertainment, provided there's actually entertainment to be had. My Bloody Valentine 3D, however, is about as entertaining as getting a root canal, and that's whether you're watching it in 2D or 3D. At least, though, the 2D version is unlikely to make you feel like throwing up: personally, I was able to stomach about five minutes of the 3D edition before switching back to the normal "flat" variant. Whereas theatrical screenings of the film in 3D used special projectors and 3D glasses to create the three-dimensional effect in full colour, those watching it at home with their regular displays and the cheap cardboard shades that come in the box are restricted to hues of green and purple, which frankly looks awful and induces eye strain and headaches.

And it's not as if the much-vaunted 3D effect is remotely convincing. Rather than giving any true semblance of depth, all that happens is that different objects or characters on the screen stick out like a children's pop-up picture book. Ironically, the "flat" version has more of a sense of depth than its 3D counterpart, since it makes use of the typical cinematic conventions for signifying depth and distance, namely focus pulling and the usual depth of field tricks. I'm not about to write off the notion of 3D completely on the basis of one film, and would definitely like to experience the gimmick in a theatrical environment with the film's full colour palette to get a better idea of what the results are like, but frankly, if the cheap-looking 3D effects on display in My Bloody Valentine are the best the technology is capable of, I struggle to see the fad lasting very long.

As Roger Ebert puts it:

I will say this first and get it out of the way: 3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they've been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look.

I disagree with Ebert on one count: I don't think the effects even look neat. Other than that, I suspect he's right on the money.

Finally getting on to the video quality of this BD release, and to be honest it's a bit of a mixed bag. The film was shot using the much-vaunted Red One digital camera, and the result is every inch your typical digital production - murky, low contrast, artificial-looking - with the addition of an inordinate amount of motion blur that gives the whole thing the look of interlaced video, despite the fact that the film is encoded at 1080p24. I'm afraid I'm not up to scratch on the technical side of the Red camera, so I've no idea whether the filmmakers did something wrong or this is simply how material shot with this camera looks. The blacks are also noticeably elevated, a problem which seems to affect an inordinate number of digital productions. Either way, it looks cheap and ugly, like a highly detailed version of one of those daytime TV soap operas - you know, the boring, ugly ones with the flat, gloomy lighting. As such, the BD is probably a fairly accurate representation of the source material, besides some compression artefacts and what looks like ringing resulting from low pass filtering (Example 1 ably demonstrates both these problems). On the plus side, the colour fringing so often associated with digital photography is relatively unobtrusive. Still, it's an underwhelming-looking image overall, but I suspect that even the best BD in the world couldn't have made the film look significantly better than it does here. 7/10

By the way, both both versions - 2D and 3D - take up exactly the same amount of space (18.5 GB) and have the same bit rate (26.24 Mbps).

My Bloody Valentine 3D
studio: Lions Gate; country: UK; region code: ABC; codec: AVC;
file size: 18.5 GB; average bit rate (including audio): 26.24 Mbit/sec

And, just for good measure, here are some shots from the 3D version:

8 Comments

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at whiggles[at]ntlworld[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.