Once Upon a Time in Mexico
 

So I just watched the trailer for the upcoming Robert Rodriguez movie (besides spy kids 3d). this was also shot in HD, like spy kids 2 and 3. I'm really anxious to see an HD movie that isn't 3/4 CG/green screen shots (like attack of the clones or spy kids). from what I can tell on the windows media stream on the sony website, it looks pretty darn good.

Comments? Any other HD movies worth checking out that aren't mostly effects and cheezy dialog?


Here's the link to the official OUaTiM website:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/o...ico/index.html

That looks really good. There were only a few shots that were giveaways to the fact it was HD, and even then it was most likely because I knew it was beforehand.

I saw some footage from this movie projected a while back at eFilm, the company that did the film-out. It look just beautiful, the nicest HD I've seen to date. Rodriguez really has his cameras dialed in.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO
 

I didn't even know it was digital until I read this thread. Looks Good...

That's scary!
 

There's a Spy Kids 3?

There is. And more importantly, 3D!

Not since Earl Owensby's ROTTWEILLER 3D has there been such an event!

Spy Kids 3D indeed. Shot with two digital HD camera's linked
together with a special system. I believe they even had a special
set of glasses on set to view the camera. Apperently it gave a
whole new meaning to measuring focus <g>

So far, bad reviews.

Bad reviews, huh? I knew it couldn't hold a candle to ROTTWEILER (now inexplicably called DOGS OF H3LL)!

Let's see . . . kids flying around, blowing up stuff and a bunch of state-of-the-art cgi - or - killer dogs, drooling, barking and maiming everything in sight. Hmmm.

And if that doesn't prompt you to rent ROTTWEILER instead of going to see SK3D, then maybe these reviews from IMDB will convince you.

"I could have done better effects from my kitchen. The dialogue was awful & boring, the editing was terrible, there is not one thing worthwhile about this movie."

"It's unbelievable in its ineptness, starting with photography so poor (especially during the night sequences) that the movie looks like it was shot in 8 MM." (Probably an insult to 8mm!)

"It looks as if it was shot with a bad video camera, and the acting is beyond bad. How can anyone give it anything higher than a "0"?"

However, these people PAID to rent this movie, twenty years after it's release and they're complaining! Who says you can't make money by making a bad movie?!

By the way - I paid to see it when it came out in '82, as Owensby is a NC filmmaking legend!!!