Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Tommy Nelson I saw this movie for the first time around 7 years ago. Not that long ago, but long enough where 3-D movies were still an attraction, and were around to go to on special occasions or once in a while. Now that they're everywhere and every movie is in 3-D, movies like this one would most likely not be funded because there are big budget 3-D films out there that could make a fortune, and people will definitely go to see them instead of this. And really, this isn't even a very good movie, but, the 3-D is the best I've ever seen, and far superb to 3-D films I've seen even recently. The story isn't great, and the plot is pretty muddled, but this film is a vessel to show off amazing 3-D effects, and as a 3-D vessel, this is pretty darn impressive.The story follows a young man named Johnny, whose father just passed away. Johnny goes to a castle his dad left him and meets Mr. D (voiced by Harry Shearer of the Simpsons), who is actually the Devil. Johnny wants to be a rock and roll star, like his father was, so naturally Satan wants him to sell his soul. Following the basic plot is a string of special effect scenes, which make up 80% of the movie.This movie, as a film, probably deserves about a 3/10. I would never watch this on home video, unless the new 3-D TV's did this thing justice to make it as amazing as it was in Imax. As a 3-D movie, I'd give it a 10. Where movie's currently are being put in 3-D just to make more money, this movie was clearly built for 3-D. And it's really good 3-D. Parts of the movie are right in front of your face, and I don't just mean things pop out, I mean the entire film looks like it's happening right in front of your face. This 3-D is so good, that it makes up somewhat for the stupid characters, and the dumb plot, and the idiotic ending. Where I would normally dislike a movie with a bad plot and good effects, I actually didn't dislike this. It's a very engulfing experience, and the 3-D helps make this very watchable.My rating: ** 1/2 out of ****. Not rated, contains some mild language and violence. 40 mins.

johnoldstory I saw this one on an IMAX screen and loved it. The 3D technology has come a long way since the red and blue glasses days. The home DVD is worth the price just for the song that the ghost mother sings at the beginning of the movie (even if you don't order the 3D hardware). It's very captivating. The roller coaster ride through hell is awesome with the 3D effect. Some parts are genuinely creepy, particularly the torture room scene where several CGI characters are subjected to some very imaginative painful deaths. Probably not something you would want to explain to younger children. The credits at the end show up as floating bubbles. The credits are as impressive with the 3D effect as the whole rest of the movie. I really enjoyed this short film.

hutching I once saw a 3D IMAX movie before, a documentary about the wildlife in the Galapagos Islands. That movie was amazing, as the 3D is really good and makes you feel like you are right THERE.This movie's 3D also made me feel like I was right there, but unfortunately this was a place where I did not want to be. The scenery was dismal and ugly, the plot made little sense, the dialogue was awful... I would give more details about how bad it was but I can't bear to go back and think about it again. I would have walked out but I was trapped by this handrail that they lower in the IMAX theatre. Maybe that's why it's there...There were some cool 3D effects; there was a neat rollercoaster ride (through hell though) , and my favorite effect was one where there were two parallel worlds connected by a window that you could look through. Unfortunately, what I saw when I looked through was neither scary nor entertaining, just revolting.A bad movie in 3D is still a bad movie. I highly recommend 3D IMAX if you haven't seen it before --- just not this one.

gliddonp After reading of the disagreements between IMAX and the producers, I decided that the film simply *had* to be seen, if for no other reason than the support of free artist endeavour, unfettered by the dictates of the machinery used to present it. The visual aesthetics of current 3D projection technology were also a strong drawing point.First, the up side. Much of the film is computer-generated, usually quite obviously so, but this detracts very little from the beauty of the images on the screen. By way of introduction, the film begins with the viewer flying over a vast expanse of seascape and hillside, circling an ominous castle...getting ever closer and closer. This echo of early Imax films (i.e. North of Superior) is highly effective as a means to draw the viewer into the world subsequently created. The illusion of depth and solidity is maintained, and increased, throughout this rather short offering by clever viewpoints, slow panning and circling, and the creation of interior spaces and movements that had some of the audience gasping in discomfort, yet loving the "ride". Textures were sumptuous, perspectives both nightmarish and realistic, though the meshing of computer-generated surroundings and human actor(s) was somewhat disconnected or abstract at points. The 3D effect was never lost, though oft-times had a cartoonish quality to it. The music was geared to a 15-25 year-old audience, with some of it having an unearthly beauty that sent shivers along my spine.The disturbing images are inadvertently humourous, lacking even the "horror punch" present in everyday hellfire-and-brimstone preaching, letalone the creepy-crawly quality present in "Nightmare Before Christmas".The down side? The plot isn't much, characters lack depth, and trite philosophy underlies much of the dialogue on the screen. The technology is barely tolerable, with rather heavy eyegear needed to complete the illusions of visual depth. Watching three hours with this equipment on one's head would be physically painful, if not impossible. Though I soon adapted to the equipment I had to move my head, rather than my eyes, to look at different sections of the screen, in order to avoid a disconcerting strobing effect. This is hardly "ergonomic".All in all, worth seeing as an almost-spectacular demonstration of a technology in its primitive stages of development, and a visual genre still in formation. More will come our way, and further refinements will no doubt amaze us in years to come.