Crappy film

As Good As It Gets

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Outside the museum: The landscape video was taken in broad daylight. So nothing outstanding here. You know why if you understand landscape photography.Inside the museum: The paintings were 3D-rized, thus becoming sort of stacks of 2D cards. Look bad.Only the sculptures look good in 3D, simply because they themselves are 3D objects in the first place

This is the second so called 3D art documentary I have seen and it makes exactly the same horrible mistakes:It turns fantastic painting masterpieces into cheap 3D playstation looking rubbish. Paintings have texture, brush strokes, light bouncing of them, THAT is what I want to see as realistic as possible, not this totally messed up ugly tech crap they throw at you unashamed of the culture rape they have just committed. You think you finally have a chance to get the perfect close-up look of the beauty, but in this you get weird distorted 3D versions of a flat painting. Who ever thought we wanted to see a 3D version or a masterpiece is crazy.I'm here for the 3D sculptures, but we don't get a lot of time to watch those, for some reason they decided it needed a mediocre C level actor pretending to be a historical figure. This adds nothing, I could have done without any people, just a voice over. It adds nothing to see someone pretending this is some art soap.This obviously is nothing more than a TV show presented as arty documentary, far too little actual art, horrible reproductions of the paintings and the stained glass. Another big problem with this is a lot of the 3D seem to be computer generated, made 3D in the edit. shots have a weird flicker, objects change shape and move around. It doesn't work when you fly over the dome and the top moves around. It is terribly distracting. Their must have been a committee that decided to make paintings sexy for the masses and somehow it means destroying them and make them cheap tacky trash 3D versions. Please people, do yourself a favor, stop sexing up something that has stood on its own for over 500 years. We love those works AS THEY ARE! Why would you even consider re-imagining these paintings? This isn't bloody spiderman!

My wife bought tickets to this documentary as a surprise, a surprise indeed. On Friday night we went to the movie theater and found out that it was a 3D documentary. I asked myself, how is it possible to watch art through cheap 3D glasses? I answered the question... well, the David is a statue and 3D will certainly enhance its beauty. Same with the architecture, beautiful 3D cinematography used wisely should be worth watching. So my initial thoughts turned true. The pine forest valley and the cathedral aerial views were magnificent, the river and the bridges, superb! So... whats wrong with this art movie intended for sophisticated audience? 25 years ago someone came up with the idea of colorization. A b/w film was processed by a computer adding color to flesh and a blue or red hue to men's/women's clothing. This was sacrilege! but it gave the studios some extra million sales of old films. Uffizi Gallery 3D/4k commits a worse sin, 3dirization! Church vitrals turned 3D! Botticelli 3D nymphs! Oops, big mistake. The documentary instead of improving the audience contemplation ability turns out to be a Spiderman movie. After giving it some extra thought the problem with 3dirization is not that it was done, the problem is that the audience comes out thinking that the works of art are actually 3D. Yes, the renaissance evolves art an brings depth to the flat medieval art but that's it. I think that the director first should show the masterpiece in its original splendor and then use the 3dirization technique using a morphing transition between the original and the 3D version, then use the 3D version to educate the audience, thats why we are here for.