I found this film moving and enjoyable, more than some of the more "documentary" style IMAX films. In the late 80's I saw an OMNIMAX film in celebration of Singapore's 25th anniversary as a nation. Parts of it were done in a narrative style, with a scene of the Japanese invasion of the island in WW II particularly immediate, perhaps being as realistic and "involving" as any scene I have ever seen in a war movie. It felt as if the invading soldiers were all around me, and I could almost feel real danger. I have longed for more films that had actual characters interacting with each other using dialogue ever since, done in the more traditional style instead of a documentary style with only narration.
"Wings of Courage" impressed me by using real actors, a notable director, and a standard dramatic approach to a story with real conflict. I found the same to be true with "China: The Panda Adventure" which has a plucky heroine, Ruth Harkness (Maria Bello, who is especially good) a stalwart and loyal hero, Quentin Young, and a plot and story line developed with fabulous vistas of China as a backdrop. The acting was overall quite good in my opinion. The usual goals of an IMAX film were met, to transport the viewer to places not often seen, and to do so with the incredible sharpness the format brings to a giant screen. Heck, the 2-D films almost look three-dimensional with all the apparent depth this format affords even without 3-D. There is still the tendency to compromise between a huge screen film to show scenic wonders, and a real drama with realistic interplay. The film does not always succeed with the later.
One user has made some harsh comments, such as that it has "awkward, wavy camera movements and the blurry, distorted projection", that it made me wonder if we were seeing the same film. I fear that he saw this in a theater that was improperly set up, or with the equipment out of order, for I did not see anything even remotely fitting his description. A key word here probably is "blurry", for a properly projected IMAX film will never deserve that comment. I also have to wonder if he was stuck in the first row or two, the only situation where "distorted" could apply, the back few rows are by far the best seats.
***** WARNING, POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ********
The same viewer complaining about the technical aspects of the film was also critical of the scripting of the film. I don't think he was paying enough attention for the heroine is seen transporting only one panda out of China, and we do not see it locked in a "tiny cage", in fact we only see this baby panda in an open basket or in her own arms. Also, if one is following the plot, this panda was orphaned by the hunter, Dakar Johnston, and in terms of the problem usually present with this situation, it would have been left to die, whether in its own habitat or not, if not rescued by the heroine, Ruth Harkness. Additionally, the pandas were not considered an endangered species in 1936, the year in which the film is set. Perhaps this is the main point of the film, as narration over the end credits explains that by taking the panda to America, these creatures became better known to the entire world and ultimately protected. It is also explained that even "the bad hunter", Johnston, learns the error of his ways and stops hunting the pandas as a result. Do you really think The World Wildlife Fund would be in favor of a tale showing panda poaching as heroic ? Well, they are a co-producer of the film and I would guess also had a part in writing.
I found the cinematography to be generally gorgeous, with the lighting in the night scenes at the beginning especially interesting. It helped invoke the period in which the film was set (mid-30's). As usual, the exteriors with rushing river rapids and towering mist-shrouded peaks show the advantages of shooting such scenes in IMAX. Why is it that only in IMAX films do we actually hear dialogue with directionality, instead of the typical stage-center approach used now in almost all features ? In the 50's and 60's it was standard practice to pan the characters voices to place them in the proper place in the scene. This IMAX film uses this approach, even placing a voice in the right rear surround speakers when the character is placed there.
On the negative side, because this is a short film the characters do tend to be a bit stereotypical, without complete development. Perhaps Johnston ("the hard-hearted hunter") being the character in which this aspect is most noticeable.
"Wings of Courage" impressed me by using real actors, a notable director, and a standard dramatic approach to a story with real conflict. I found the same to be true with "China: The Panda Adventure" which has a plucky heroine, Ruth Harkness (Maria Bello, who is especially good) a stalwart and loyal hero, Quentin Young, and a plot and story line developed with fabulous vistas of China as a backdrop. The acting was overall quite good in my opinion. The usual goals of an IMAX film were met, to transport the viewer to places not often seen, and to do so with the incredible sharpness the format brings to a giant screen. Heck, the 2-D films almost look three-dimensional with all the apparent depth this format affords even without 3-D. There is still the tendency to compromise between a huge screen film to show scenic wonders, and a real drama with realistic interplay. The film does not always succeed with the later.
One user has made some harsh comments, such as that it has "awkward, wavy camera movements and the blurry, distorted projection", that it made me wonder if we were seeing the same film. I fear that he saw this in a theater that was improperly set up, or with the equipment out of order, for I did not see anything even remotely fitting his description. A key word here probably is "blurry", for a properly projected IMAX film will never deserve that comment. I also have to wonder if he was stuck in the first row or two, the only situation where "distorted" could apply, the back few rows are by far the best seats.
***** WARNING, POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ********
The same viewer complaining about the technical aspects of the film was also critical of the scripting of the film. I don't think he was paying enough attention for the heroine is seen transporting only one panda out of China, and we do not see it locked in a "tiny cage", in fact we only see this baby panda in an open basket or in her own arms. Also, if one is following the plot, this panda was orphaned by the hunter, Dakar Johnston, and in terms of the problem usually present with this situation, it would have been left to die, whether in its own habitat or not, if not rescued by the heroine, Ruth Harkness. Additionally, the pandas were not considered an endangered species in 1936, the year in which the film is set. Perhaps this is the main point of the film, as narration over the end credits explains that by taking the panda to America, these creatures became better known to the entire world and ultimately protected. It is also explained that even "the bad hunter", Johnston, learns the error of his ways and stops hunting the pandas as a result. Do you really think The World Wildlife Fund would be in favor of a tale showing panda poaching as heroic ? Well, they are a co-producer of the film and I would guess also had a part in writing.
I found the cinematography to be generally gorgeous, with the lighting in the night scenes at the beginning especially interesting. It helped invoke the period in which the film was set (mid-30's). As usual, the exteriors with rushing river rapids and towering mist-shrouded peaks show the advantages of shooting such scenes in IMAX. Why is it that only in IMAX films do we actually hear dialogue with directionality, instead of the typical stage-center approach used now in almost all features ? In the 50's and 60's it was standard practice to pan the characters voices to place them in the proper place in the scene. This IMAX film uses this approach, even placing a voice in the right rear surround speakers when the character is placed there.
On the negative side, because this is a short film the characters do tend to be a bit stereotypical, without complete development. Perhaps Johnston ("the hard-hearted hunter") being the character in which this aspect is most noticeable.