-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
DVD Reviews

HTF DVD REVIEW: Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D



This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#1 of 46 Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer

  • 10,864 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted January 31 2009 - 02:32 PM


Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D
Directed by Steve Miner

Studio: Paramount
Year: 1982
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1 anamorphic
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: R
Audio: Dolby Digital 5.1 English; 2.0 mono English, French, Spanish
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish
MSRP: $ 16.99

Release Date: February 3, 2009
Review Date: January 31, 2009


The Film

2/5

You have to hand it to Jason. He’s an equal opportunity butcher. Though the common misconception is that serial killer Jason Vorhees has a bloodlust for the young, Friday the 13th Part 3 proves beyond any question that he’s not particularly choosy whom he targets. Yes, the usual assortment of young pot smoking (and in one nauseatingly graphic scene pot eating) hotties go to meet their maker once again in this second sequel in the profitable series, but a larger than normal cadre of adults also comes in for some really bad times, too. Those familiar with the first two films will not be surprised by what they find here. It’s more of the same formula of set-ups, fake scares, and then the payoffs. Only a few new wrinkles in the cloth add any interest to what by the third film has become a familiar grab-bag of murder and mayhem.

Chris (Dana Kimmell) has cloudy memories of a close escape from a maniacal killer the previous summer but comes back to Crystal Lake with a group of her friends confident that there’s safety in numbers. Her boy friend Rick (Paul Kratka) assures her he’ll stay close. Also along for the weekend are the practical joking Shelly (Larry Zerner), Vera (Catherine Parks) who defies her mother to come away with her friends as Shelly’s date, and several others. A brush-up with a motorcycle gang (Kevin O'Brien, Gloria Charles, Nick Savage) also brings them to the property while silent stalker Jason Voorhees (Richard Brooker) goes about his business of surprise and attack.

Because the third film in series was filmed in 3-D, the added benefit of murders in your lap was undoubtedly an appealing lure during the film’s initial theatrical release. And, true to the process, there are numerous objects thrust, poked, and pointed at the camera to achieve that dimensional effect even when some of them are so obvious like yoyos, popping corn in a skillet, and juggled fruit. And, of course, all manner of machete and knife blades as well as the handles of those weapons along with pitchforks, shovels, and other tools poke right out from the screen, too. Director Steve Miner, returning again after also helming part two of the series, has borrowed a few ideas for some of the murders from previous installments, and the final confrontation between the sole surviving youth and Jason is sustained much longer than in the previous films. There‘s no denying, however, the effectiveness of the film‘s most novel 3-D execution complete with an eyeball coming right at the audience.

Though many of the young actors in these films often show their inexperience with stiff, sometimes laughably bad performances, the performance level in part three does seem to be a bit higher than the last installment particularly with the leading couple. And director Miner has a fair amount of fun toying with the older couple who are the first two victims, playing cat and mouse with Anne Gaybis and Steve Susskind in a rather fun sequence of fake-outs before arriving at the real thing. This was the film that introduced the hockey mask for the Jason character, and Richard Brooker wears it well and seems game for all of the punishment that gets handed out to the character this time out.


Video Quality

2/5

The film is presented in its theatrical 2.35:1 aspect ratio and is anamorphically enhanced for widescreen televisions. The set offers both the 2-D and an anaglyph red-blue 3-D versions (two pairs of glasses are enclosed) of the movie. The 2-D version is soft with dated looking, erratically saturated color, milky blacks, and mediocre shadow detail. The 3-D version, of course, throws out any possibility of accurate color values, and the 3-D effects are below average in effectiveness with this process. Many of the objects thrust at the camera have ghosting images that partially ruin the dimensionality. The most effective use of 3-D here is in frame layering which places numerous people and objects in the same frame but on different planes. Those shots work OK with the anaglyph process used here. The film has been divided into 14 chapters.

Audio Quality

2.5/5

The Dolby Digital 5.1 audio mix has only the barest of effects in the surround channels. Music is pretty much restricted to the front channels with only occasional wind or atmospheric sounds delivered to the rears. The subwoofer gets to have a night off. The original mono mix is probably the better bet of the two English language choices.

Special Features

½ /5

Apart from having both versions of the movie on the same disc, the only other bonus feature is the original theatrical trailer which is presented at 1.78:1 and is anamorphically enhanced. It runs for 2 minutes.


In Conclusion

2/5 (not an average)

3-D was the appealing gimmick for the third go-round of Friday the 13th, but with that feature poorly represented in this new DVD release, we’re left with the same cavalcade of mostly familiar murders in the same pastoral setting.


Matt Hough
Charlotte, NC

#2 of 46 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted January 31 2009 - 09:52 PM

This film may not have much to recommend it, but what it does have is an effective use of the stereoscopic language. The film makes no visual sense in a 2-d version. Releasing it in the pseudo-3-D process of anaglyph robs the stereocopic cinematography of any virtues it may have. The film was designed and executed for polarized 3-D and that's how it must be seen. Why couldn't Paramount have included a field-sequential option for polarized shutter-glasses instead? At least that would make sense.

#3 of 46 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,248 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted February 01 2009 - 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
This film may not have much to recommend it, but what it does have is an effective use of the stereoscopic language. The film makes no visual sense in a 2-d version. Releasing it in the pseudo-3-D process of anaglyph robs the stereocopic cinematography of any virtues it may have. The film was designed and executed for polarized 3-D and that's how it must be seen. Why couldn't Paramount have included a field-sequential option for polarized shutter-glasses instead? At least that would make sense.

More people can watch the crappy anaglyph than those of us that have a field-sequential system and a TV that works with it.

Richard, what TV do you use to watch your field-sequential DVD's? I only have a 27 inch TV so, the effect in not that great. I have a Sanyo LCD projector but field-sequential does not work on it.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#4 of 46 Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer

  • 5,998 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted February 01 2009 - 02:03 AM

Some thoughts...

My feeling on watching 3-D on television was always that it didn't work well at all, but mainly because the TV set was always rather small (19" - 32") and it's not the same as when you're sitting in a darkened theater with a hugely wide screen, and no type of interference with objects on the side in your peripheral vision. With older TV, you're pretty much sitting far away staring at a small box. I could never see 3-D working like that.

With FRIDAY 3-D, I am going to be watching it on a widescreen 46" HDTV, so I am hopeful that the effects will work better. Matt -- I don't recall what type of screen you usually watch your movies on; can you fill me in? How did you watch F 3?

#5 of 46 Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer

  • 10,864 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted February 01 2009 - 03:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Some thoughts...

My feeling on watching 3-D on television was always that it didn't work well at all, but mainly because the TV set was always rather small (19" - 32") and it's not the same as when you're sitting in a darkened theater with a hugely wide screen, and no type of interference with objects on the side in your peripheral vision. With older TV, you're pretty much sitting far away staring at a small box. I could never see 3-D working like that.

With FRIDAY 3-D, I am going to be watching it on a widescreen 46" HDTV, so I am hopeful that the effects will work better. Matt -- I don't recall what type of screen you usually watch your movies on; can you fill me in? How did you watch F 3?

I used a 56" rear projection screen HDTV and played it upconverted to 1080p.

Of the three 3-D movies I've watched on this TV (the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana concert film on Blu-ray and JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH on Blu-ray), this was by far the poorest looking of the three. The amount of ghost imaging rather than real 3-D effects was much more prominent here than on the two Blu-rays. Sure, you'll get the effect OK, but it's not really satisfying.

#6 of 46 Jon Martin

Jon Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,219 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2002

Posted February 01 2009 - 03:36 AM

The 3-D didn't work for me either. While some of the effects worked (the spear, the yo-yo, the eye), whenever there is a flat scene, it is very blurry. Better than the 2-D version though.

Surprisingly, the new Shout! Factory 3-D DVD of THE STEWARDESSES really isn't that bad. The film is terrible, but the 3-D effects kind of work. It uses the same blue and red glasses.

It will be interesting to see how the Superbowl and CHUCK 3-D, using green glasses, works.

#7 of 46 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted February 01 2009 - 03:44 AM

RolandL, trying watching your field-sequentials on a CRT. That always works. I've kept a 38 inch Sony. In my experience an LCD never works although I'm told that some high-end displays deliver field-sequential depth better than a CRT, but I don't know which and what. Field-sequential can also be adjusted for digital displays although that's out of my realm. You can also watch it on your home computer like any 3-D video game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Some thoughts...

My feeling on watching 3-D on television was always that it didn't work well at all, but mainly because the TV set was always rather small (19" - 32") and it's not the same as when you're sitting in a darkened theater with a hugely wide screen, and no type of interference with objects on the side in your peripheral vision. With older TV, you're pretty much sitting far away staring at a small box. I could never see 3-D working like that.
Polarized / field-sequential works fine on an older TV and many newer digital TVs. But you're talking about anaglyph, yes? Not the same thing as polarized / field-sequential. The size of the screen is irrelevant to viewing anaglyph. Anaglyph looks like mud no matter what you watch it on. The problem is anaglyph. DVD distributors need to remove this fraudulent process from their thinking. No stereoscopic film should be released in anaglyph.

Friday the 13th 3-D was NOT FILMED IN ANAGLYPH and is NOT INTENDED TO BE SEEN IN ANAGLYPH. It was filmed with a twin-lens / single camera system that converges the left and right eyes through POLARIZED glasses i.e. sunglasses. It is a POLARIZED film with ecellent and balanced color. There's a vast difference between the quality of polarized and anaglyph. Think of it as the difference between Blu-ray and vhs at the slow speed. Polarized is authentic. Anaglyph is not. Anaglyph is a gimmick which by definition produces very poor depth because it is incapable of producing high-quality depth. If you're watching Friday the 13th 3-D in anaglyph, you're watching a distortion and a corruption. Converting authentic 3-D to analgyph is tantamount to colorizing Casablanca and Citizen Kane. There's always some fool who says he prefers it, but that doesn't make it right.

#8 of 46 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,221 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted February 01 2009 - 03:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
The 3-D didn't work for me either. While some of the effects worked (the spear, the yo-yo, the eye), whenever there is a flat scene, it is very blurry. Better than the 2-D version though.

Surprisingly, the new Shout! Factory 3-D DVD of THE STEWARDESSES really isn't that bad. The film is terrible, but the 3-D effects kind of work. It uses the same blue and red glasses.

I thought the "Friday" 3D worked reasonably well, but I agree that the 3D "Stewardesses" is quite effective. The B&W version fares especially well in terms of 3D effects. Totally dreadful movie, of course, though it has a lot of good nudity! Posted Image
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#9 of 46 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted February 01 2009 - 03:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattH.
I used a 56" rear projection screen HDTV and played it upconverted to 1080p.

Of the three 3-D movies I've watched on this TV (the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana concert film on Blu-ray and JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH on Blu-ray), this was by far the poorest looking of the three. The amount of ghost imaging rather than real 3-D effects was much more prominent here than on the two Blu-rays. Sure, you'll get the effect OK, but it's not really satisfying.
The Cyrus/Hannah Montana concert and Journey to the Center of the Earth were also in anaglyph, yes? That's why you were disappointed. Because they are analgyph.

When film buffs start expressing displeasure at anaglyph and asking distributors for field-sequential 3-D options instead, it will happen.

#10 of 46 Jeff Reis

Jeff Reis

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 186 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 06 1998

Posted February 01 2009 - 07:21 AM

Thanks for this review...I think I'll pass if the 3d is that crappy.

#11 of 46 Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer

  • 5,998 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted February 01 2009 - 10:06 AM

I'd say you really need to judge for yourself, Jeff.

#12 of 46 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    Producer

  • 3,932 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted February 01 2009 - 03:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
RolandL, trying watching your field-sequentials on a CRT. That always works. I've kept a 38 inch Sony. In my experience an LCD never works although I'm told that some high-end displays deliver field-sequential depth better than a CRT, but I don't know which and what. Field-sequential can also be adjusted for digital displays although that's out of my realm. You can also watch it on your home computer like any 3-D video game.


Polarized / field-sequential works fine on an older TV and many newer digital TVs. But you're talking about anaglyph, yes? Not the same thing as polarized / field-sequential. The size of the screen is irrelevant to viewing anaglyph. Anaglyph looks like mud no matter what you watch it on. The problem is anaglyph. DVD distributors need to remove this fraudulent process from their thinking. No stereoscopic film should be released in anaglyph.

Friday the 13th 3-D was NOT FILMED IN ANAGLYPH and is NOT INTENDED TO BE SEEN IN ANAGLYPH. It was filmed with a twin-lens / single camera system that converges the left and right eyes through POLARIZED glasses i.e. sunglasses. It is a POLARIZED film with ecellent and balanced color. There's a vast difference between the quality of polarized and anaglyph. Think of it as the difference between Blu-ray and vhs at the slow speed. Polarized is authentic. Anaglyph is not. Anaglyph is a gimmick which by definition produces very poor depth because it is incapable of producing high-quality depth. If you're watching Friday the 13th 3-D in anaglyph, you're watching a distortion and a corruption. Converting authentic 3-D to analgyph is tantamount to colorizing Casablanca and Citizen Kane. There's always some fool who says he prefers it, but that doesn't make it right.

Given the current developments in the 3-D world, don't expect field sequential to make a significant dent or comeback in the home entertainment world. The next wave of 3-D for home is likely to focus on the dual video stream capabilities of Blu-Ray. 3-D ready displays are already entering the marketplace.

Also, a minor correction, Richard: Friday the 13th Part 3-D and others from the 3-D comeback of 82-83 were filmed with side-by-side cameras and separate strips of film, which were then combined in the over/under 3-D format known as SpaceVision, which, as you say, only required a single projector with a splitting lens and polarized filters. Polarizing is still used with the current Real D presentations, but they use clockwise/counterclockwise polarization rather than horizontal/vertical polarization, reducing eye strain in scenarios where a viewer's head is not perfectly aligned with the screen.

I agree that current anaglyphic methods are a bit of a joke, having run both Spy Kids 3-D and The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl in theatres, although the theatrical presentations were more effective than home versions.
"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#13 of 46 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,248 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted February 02 2009 - 01:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
RolandL, trying watching your field-sequentials on a CRT. That always works. I've kept a 38 inch Sony. In my experience an LCD never works although I'm told that some high-end displays deliver field-sequential depth better than a CRT, but I don't know which and what. Field-sequential can also be adjusted for digital displays although that's out of my realm. You can also watch it on your home computer like any 3-D video game.

Richard, my 27 inch is a CRT. The 3-D does look great, it's just too small. I have a very large collection of 3-D field sequential DVD's and was thinking of buying one of those Samsung or Mitsubishi DLP 120hz sets but, with all the latest news about various 3-D systems maybe I should wait until one is picked as the standard, if that ever happens.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#14 of 46 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,248 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted February 02 2009 - 02:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
Given the current developments in the 3-D world, don't expect field sequential to make a significant dent or comeback in the home entertainment world. The next wave of 3-D for home is likely to focus on the dual video stream capabilities of Blu-Ray. 3-D ready displays are already entering the marketplace.

The "3-D ready displays" are the Mitsubishi and Samsung models that have been out for the past two years? If yes, don't they work well with the current field sequential DVD's?

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#15 of 46 Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer

  • 5,998 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted February 03 2009 - 03:47 AM

I bought this today and have just experimented with many scenes, before I watch it in its entirety. The 3-D works quite well, I think, though of course you have the occasional "double ghost" effect.

One thing I was surprised about is that the opening credits are not in 3-D. The titles were designed for it, and I'm pretty sure they came right out into your face in 1982, but they're not in 3-D on the disc.

#16 of 46 Radioman970

Radioman970

    Producer

  • 5,698 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 22 2006
  • Real Name:James Perry
  • LocationCould be anywhere

Posted February 03 2009 - 05:11 AM

Glad to hear this is out. I was too a'scared to see it in theaters at the time. I've always regretted that. At least now I can see it. Cool! I'll pick this up next time Im not so strapped for cash. I'll probably watch it on my PC monitor. It's a 19" CRT. Spykids 3D kind of hurt to watch that way and the 3D episode of 3rd Rock from the Sun didn't look at that 3D. But I'm game to keep trying.
Silly Party Candidate:  Tarquin Fin- tim- lim- bim- whin- bim- lim- bus- stop- F'tang- F'tang- Olè- Biscuitbarrel

 


#17 of 46 WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,217 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted February 03 2009 - 05:31 AM

Quote:
One thing I was surprised about is that the opening credits are not in 3-D. The titles were designed for it, and I'm pretty sure they came right out into your face in 1982, but they're not in 3-D on the disc.

Maybe the fact that the titles are red against a blue background caused problems for the anaglyph conversion.
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#18 of 46 GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor

  • 953 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted February 03 2009 - 05:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I bought this today and have just experimented with many scenes, before I watch it in its entirety. The 3-D works quite well, I think, though of course you have the occasional "double ghost" effect.

One thing I was surprised about is that the opening credits are not in 3-D. The titles were designed for it, and I'm pretty sure they came right out into your face in 1982, but they're not in 3-D on the disc.

Are you serious??? What is Paramount thinking? The opening credits were incredible in the theatrical polarized 3-D presentation, as well as the field-sequential Japanese VHD release on video years ago.

If anyone has some red blue 3-D glasses laying around, here are the opening 3-D credits converted to anaglyph. (Red lens over left eye, like the new 3D DVD)
YouTube - friday the 13th III in 3d , opening credits

Note the above clip uses full color anaglyph 3-D encoding. If Paramount was concerned about the red saturated opening credits, they could have lowered the original chroma levels during the credits. That approach works great for cases like this when encoding in anaglyph 3-D.

And needless to say this movie looked a hell of a lot better in it's original polarized presentation. The 20 plus year old field-sequential video transfer for the VHD still has a great 3-D presentation, sans the limitations of the film to video transfer technology used at the time.

#19 of 46 Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor

  • 7,117 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted February 03 2009 - 06:46 AM

I picked up my copy today at Wal-Mart for $13. They had all three but this is the only one I bought. I'm going to guess the 3-D will work best at night so I'm going to wait and watch it then.

It was funny because two people picked up the first film saying they didn't think the movie was on DVD yet since the "trailers are still on TV". I guess I should have told them this was the original one but I just walked away. Posted Image

I've always thought this was the weakest up until parts 8-10 but I hope the 3-D version plays better.

#20 of 46 Jeffrey Nelson

Jeffrey Nelson

    Screenwriter

  • 1,058 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 04 2003
  • Real Name:Jeffrey Nelson
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted February 03 2009 - 07:38 AM

With new TVs being designed for use with regular polarized glasses, there's no longer a need for field sequential:

How 3-D TV works - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com


Back to DVD, Blu-ray & Digital Reviews



Forum Nav Content I Follow