'What Dreams May Come' - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Kenneth's review of 'What Dreams May Come' is up. He says this HD DVD impresses with a beautiful video transfer, but disappoints with an only average audio track and an anemic set of supplements.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/908/w...msmaycome.html

[Blurry]

Sounds great and I am rely looking forward to this one, should be a treat. It sounds like the low audio rating is not a deficiency of the transfer, just a lackluster soundtrack.

[eNoize]

I agree with the review -- not reference quality transfer with the all the awe and pop; but great depth and bright, realistic colors.

[cloudy]

I do respect the time they put into offering reviews on this site.
However, I very rarely agree with their reviews. Most notably on the "movie itself" aspect.
I like movies very much. However I do NOT analyze the depth of the script. If I am entertained, I consider it a good movie. I was very entertained by this movie, and thus I will buy it.
I actually feel kind of sorry for people who watch movies with such deep analysis. Seriously. I can not see how it would be enjoyable AT ALL if I spent most of a movie trying to decide what the director, actors, screen writers, etc should have done differently.
My only goal while watching a movie is to relax and let the movie entertain me.
If I want a review, I prefer to take the advice of people who just like to be entertained. Most notably, the user reviewers on rottentomatoes.com

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by cloudy

I do respect the time they put into offering reviews on this site.
However, I very rarely agree with their reviews. Most notably on the "movie itself" aspect.
I like movies very much. However I do NOT analyze the depth of the script. If I am entertained, I consider it a good movie. I was very entertained by this movie, and thus I will buy it.
I actually feel kind of sorry for people who watch movies with such deep analysis. Seriously. I can not see how it would be enjoyable AT ALL if I spent most of a movie trying to decide what the director, actors, screen writers, etc should have done differently.
My only goal while watching a movie is to relax and let the movie entertain me.
If I want a review, I prefer to take the advice of people who just like to be entertained. Most notably, the user reviewers on rottentomatoes.com

What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing. A passive viewer lets the movie wash over them without putting too much thought into its meanings, purpose, or methods. An active viewer uses critical thinking to analyze what the movie is trying to do and whether it accomplishes that goal well.

I say this not as an insult. A person likes what a person likes. To each their own. However, a film critic who is not an active viewer would be a very poor film critic indeed.

[Philnerd]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing.

I find myself switching frequently between those modes. I finally got around to watching my copy of Letters from Iwo Jima and that was definitely an "active mode" movie for me. Very profound film and it was still on my mind the next day.

On the flip side, I really enjoy watching Independence Day, always in "passive mode".

There are great films that fit one or the other viewing mode, probably a couple of spectacular films that can be enjoyed in either viewing mode and of course movies so bad that they stink regardless of how you try to view them (Aeon Flux would be a personal example of that type of film).

[divian]

I am going to order this title sometime next month.
I like colorful HD.

[Blurry]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing. A passive viewer lets the movie wash over them without putting too much thought into its meanings, purpose, or methods. An active viewer uses critical thinking to analyze what the movie is trying to do and whether it accomplishes that goal well.

I say this not as an insult. A person likes what a person likes. To each their own. However, a film critic who is not an active viewer would be a very poor film critic indeed.

That's an interesting statement. I find that I try to simply immerse myself in a movie on the first viewing and try to "suspend my disbelief". I try not to critically analyze a movie while watching it unless the movies is so poorly done that the disbelief slaps you in the face (all too often, unfortunately).

If a movie has not successfully suspended my disbelief while watching it, then typically I am not even interested in analyzing it. However, if I feel I was effectively immersed in the film and I felt the impact of various messages that the film was trying to make, I certainly do attempt to analyze it after the fact and keep those analyses in mind on subsequent viewings to further refine them.

Some movies, like Mulholland Drive or Stay or such, I try to be immersed in the movie with the primary viewing part of my mind, but that does not stop me from continuing my analysis in the back of my mind, especially on repeat viewings.

So I guess what I am saying is that to be an effective critic you need to do both. You need to try to experience the story and for that you need to separate your primary viewing mind from the analytical side, yet still be able to analyze both during and after the movie but in a way that minimizes the involvement of the primary viewing mind during the actual watching. I would go so far as to say that someone who cannot separate these facets of his mind would make a lousy reviewer, at least for my tastes.

[cloudy]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

What you're describing is the difference between active and passive viewing. A passive viewer lets the movie wash over them without putting too much thought into its meanings, purpose, or methods. An active viewer uses critical thinking to analyze what the movie is trying to do and whether it accomplishes that goal well.

That does make sense.
I certainly can see how this movie would be looked at "actively". I just enjoyed the look of the film.
But in movies like "300", it's quite pointless to look at it actively, because it was based on a comic, not on fact. And yet, way too many "cridics" dis-liked the movie because it was not true to fact of the real war that went on.
Thanks for the insight though. Now that I think of it, I guess there are titles out there that I look at Actively. Certainly Mystery movies at least.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by cloudy

That does make sense.
I certainly can see how this movie would be looked at "actively". I just enjoyed the look of the film.
But in movies like "300", it's quite pointless to look at it actively, because it was based on a comic, not on fact. And yet, way too many "cridics" dis-liked the movie because it was not true to fact of the real war that went on.

I don't recall too many critics who panned '300' for not being based on historical fact. I think pretty much everyone realized that it was a comic book movie through and through.

Personally, the reason I disliked it was because it felt like an overlong, homoerotic professional wrestling music video.

[vinnie97]

Just saw this tonight, and I have to say the goofy script *did* take me out of this movie on a few occasions actually. Also, the seemingly contradictory statements made by these afterlife characters didn't do much to keep me passively engaged.

[Flex Mentallo]

Great book but silly movie. I deifnitely give it an A+ for special effects tho.

[HDM-GHANDI]

Very few movies try to take on the afterlife. This one is one of the best of those.

[Rich86]

We watched this HD-DVD this week, and heartily recommend it. I am a person who tends to get immersed in the story and philosophy of a film like this. Yes, it does tend to wander around various beliefs and perceptions of what "the afterlife" might be, if you believe there is one at all. But I took it to be the point, as the film continually painted the image that each individual tends to shape that afterlife according their own beliefs and experiences. Whatever you believe, the storyline is touching and emotional and who can ignore Robin Williams in a mostly dramatic role - he pulls it off quite well.
The PQ and AQ are very good - not demo material, in my opinion, but a clear upgrade over the DVD especially for a film that won the oscar for "Best Visual Effects" 10 or so years ago. I am very glad I have this title in high def and the equipment to play it.

[vinnie97]

And that was your 3000th post.

Honestly, I don't care if I ever see this film again...the ambiguity kept me detached and the adventure disinterested. Maybe I'll give it another viewing before letting it go but the odds aren't too great at the moment.