So This (sfx.co.uk) comes out Friday and oh my god does it look terrible.
I think directors were a bit more creative when they had to work around the constraints of reality. Tarsem's The Cell was pretty to look at but terrible, and now this doesn't even look pretty. Let's dial it back a bit, Hollywood!
(edited by CRZ on 9.11.11 1620)
ETA: Thanks for the assist, CRZ!
(edited by Mike Zeidler on 9.11.11 1623) "Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
I agree that this movie looks ridiculous. Given that, so did The Cell and The Fall before it, and both films were turned out pretty good.
The Cell was extremely good in a theater on the big screen the first time I saw it. It was not as good on repeated viewings or watching it at home, but that first time watching it was really, really memorable and exciting. As for The Fall, I ended up catching it in a theater in Santa Monica on a Sunday morning and was 'treated' to having (of all people...) Michael Bay sitting a few rows in front of me. Again, it was extremely entertaining watching it in a theater, and it holds up a little better that The Cell, when watching it at home.
Tarsem has a distinct style to his films. When watching them in a movie theater with other people around you, they are almost magical. When trying to watch them at home on a smaller screen, they loose the magic and excitement.
I will definitely go see this in a theater, even though it looks terrible because all of his films 'look' terrible on a television. I'm sure it will have a completely different feel in a movie theater. My only fear is that this is supposed to be his first try at a film for a mass audience, unlike his other films. I hope he doesn't dumb it down for a wider audience.
30 Rock went way nuts with the guest stars but they were all good. Great to see all of Liz Lemon's men, Jonn Hamm, Jason Sudeikis, and Dean Winters (DENNIS!! - "Hey dummy!"). Jon Bon Jovi was really good. Surprisingly good.