« Schrader in Bollywood | Filmstalker | Tab Hunter biographical film reveals studio control »


Neil Marshall on 3D horror

NeilMarshall.jpgI'm struggling to believe that genuine film-makers are picking up 3D and running with it in their films, and James Cameron is leading the way. Now Neil Marshall is the next to go and he's taking over the reigns of a 3D horror film called Burst.

Actually the film is called Burst and is also known as Burst 3-D, because that's what it is, a 3D film. So because it's 3D it needs lots of things flying at the screen, and that will come in the form of spontaneous combustion.

Yes, I think I'm losing interest already. You see 3D films need that gimmick, forget plot or characters, it needs things flying at the screen, and that's what Burst 3-D provides.

Here's the plot of the film written by Gary Dauberman through HorrorMovies.ca who reveal Neil Marshall is on task to take the helm.

”A group of stranded travelers meet during a blizzard and are stalked by a malevolent force that makes people spontaneously combust.”

I don't know anyone who is truly a film fan that believes 3D is the way of the future. For me it breaks down to one of two things, it's either used as a gimmick to move the potential audience to that date movie audience – the people who just want to see something light of an evening and don't want to think too much – or it's there to capture the younger audience for a similar reason.

They aren't too concerned about exciting plots, well written characters and thought provoking films, they want instant fixes and gimmicks such as 3D and slasher films. Sure it's a generalisation, but it's one that the studios bank on.

Apart from these two reasons I can't genuinely see how 3D really does improve a film.

I recently started listening to Mark Kermode, someone I never used to like but after I gave him a chance I'm finding a lot of sense in his words. He pointed out that once you get used to the 3D effect you start seeing it in 2D, once your eyes get adjusted, and that's something I agree with. After seeing the Avatar test footage I felt like I was continually fighting the 3D effect and trying to flatten out that image.

Another professional reviewer I've heard was talking about Disney selling 3D as a truly immersive film experience said that the immersive film experience is actually the plot and the characters, not the effect of 3D.

I'm with them both, I just don't see it as an addition to the plot, story and characters, it's more of an additional layer, like lighting, except right now it's turned up so bright you can't make out the rest of the picture for squinting. If they could just turn it down.



Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34