Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Superman Returns

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Superman Returns (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: Superman Returns

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-28-2006 01:53 AM

For anyone interested, here are links to the "Superman Returns" IMAX 15/70 and Digital Cinema playdates.

There's a couple new IMAX theaters and quite a few new D-Cinema installs (in places like Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, etc.).

[ 06-28-2006, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-28-2006 09:43 AM

Overall, I liked it a lot. I also liked the original Richard Donner version, and I agree with Mike on Otis. Lex kept him around for the same reason he kept the ditsy lady around in this one. They were people he could talk down to.

Was it me, or were there video artifacts in the opening credits when they each first appeared on the screen? If so, that's pretty lame. If not, I'll chalk it up to tired eyes on my part.

| IP: Logged

Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 06-28-2006 01:36 PM

I, too, noticed artifacts. The outline of the hollow text does that warble-flickering thing as the words zoom in (at least in the DMR version they do ... haven't looked at a 35mm yet.)

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 06-28-2006 02:05 PM

I've seen it on both DLP and 35mm, and the credits artifacting is present on both. There are a few other cases of digital artifacting throughout the movie, but I noticed them more on 35mm than on DLP.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-28-2006 02:25 PM

Ok, good, it wasn't me. Well, how stupid is that? Can't they render them in something ridiculous like 16 K resolution or something to make sure that doesn't happen? Either that or replicate the method they used over 15 years ago.

Normally I wouldn't really care about how the credits look, but the opening credits are to Superman what the opening crawl is to Star Wars. To screw them up like that is way too lame for words.

[thumbsdown]

Maybe I'm over reacting. Ok, rant off.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 06-28-2006 03:18 PM

Saw this last night at the Century 16 on Shoreline in Mountain View, auditorium #6. The 35mm print I saw appeared to be printed on Kodak Vision Premiere. [thumbsup]

Well, I was going to come in here and mention the opening credits, but others beat me to it. Suffice to say, playing "spot the jaggies" is very easy with this movie. I defy anyone to watch that opening credit sequence and then claim with a straight face that 2K resolution is good enough for the big screen.

This movie feels like a remake of the '78 version. A bad remake. Many little things here and there are cribbed from the original: bits of dialogue, music, various shots (like the final shot of Superman in orbit). Not to mention Luthor's plan is recycled from the first two movies. All that would be okay, except that the cribbed parts feel out of place, especially the dialogue. It seems as though almost no attempt was made to fit them in. And why didn't they simply hire John Williams to write the score? He is still alive and working -- surely no one could have done a better job than him.

The casting is pretty good, although I still have a problem with the actors playing Superman and Lois. Despite turning in good performances, they are just plain too young to be playing these parts. They look younger than the actors in the '78 film, yet this is supposed to be a sequel.

The pacing is very slow. The movie spends too much time on some things, such as Superman being in the hospital, but not nearly enough on others, such as his trip to Krypton. What about those rumored shots of him standing on the remains of his homeworld? I would have loved to have seen that. Supposedly they were cut for reasons of time. Unless there was something seriously wrong with those scenes, it sounds like they should have been one of the last things to get cut, while other scenes could have been easily trimmed with no ill effects. Where have all the good editors gone?

The digital cinematography is actually pretty good. On the final print it looks far better than it did in the murky trailers. It's much better than the Star Wars or Spy Kids movies. At times it is hard to tell the difference between this and a movie shot in Super-35 and passed through a 2K digital intermediate. I'm sure Panavision's full-frame sensor really helps. However there are times, such as scenes in Perry White's office and other dimly lit indoor sets, where the flesh tones still have that unnatural orange color we've seen in other digitally acquired movies. And, as always, I must again repeat that 2K is not a goal to be aiming for. 4K is where digital cinema technology should end up. The opening credits are not the only place you can play "spot the jaggies".

In the end, I came away disappointed. Most of the good action had been given away by the trailers, the epic feeling from the '78 version is gone, and it was flat-out boring at times. My first thought once the credits began to roll was, "they spent $250 million on that?"

[ 06-28-2006, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Haney ]

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-28-2006 06:49 PM

IMAX 3-D version seen at 11:45 am at AMC Columbus Easton 30. A very good crowd for such an early screening.

Well, its a good first act. We have a boy with questionable powers, Lex Luthor on an island (bound to be saved by someone), and a love triangle with Lois. I'm sure we'll see more in future editions.

Superman is smaller clone of C. Reeves. I enjoyed his performance. I thought Lois Lane looked too young and lacked strength. The child is the most interesting character...there is much to be learned about him. Kevin Spacey is excellent, and I would like to have seen more of him. Parker Posey looks good and seems to be hiding something. She knows more than she lets on.

If Superman is fast enough to turn back time in Superman I, why did it take him 5 years to get to Krypton and back? Couldn't he turn back time there to see where he came from? (Best not to get too deep into that one.)

I enjoyed it, I think it will make a good bit of money, and I'm sure it will be the next film on the road to sequel-ville.

Rating -- First 2/3 of film - A-, Last 1/3 - C.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 06-28-2006 08:07 PM

How does Superman shave? I noticed a 5:00 shadow on his upper lip a couple times.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-28-2006 08:10 PM

quote: Mike Schindler
I know that people love this movie, but I just don't get it. I didn't get it when I was a kid, and I don't get it now.

Perhaps you "don't get it" because you're not old enough to have seen "Superman" in a theater in its 1978/79 first-run showings.

quote: Mike Schindler
I don't see anything intelligent or clever about Superman spinning around the planet in order to go back in time. It's actually the opposite of those things. For one thing, it's not intelligent, because it makes no goddamn sense. I'm willing to believe a man can fly, but spinning backwards around the planet to go back in time?

Well, I wasn't implying that the spinning the planet to go back in time thing was the lone example of intelligent or clever writing. (Don't blame me if the writers couldn't think of something better like having Superman hop into a Delorean to do his time traveling!) But I do think on the whole the movie (the first one) was well written. And I don't think turning the earth back in time is any sillier than imprisoning people inside a flying mirror!

If you have no trouble suspending your disbelief for comic book and fantasy elements such as a man flying or deflecting bullets or kicking a football hundreds of yards, I don't see why traveling through time should be any more difficult to accept. (Do you have issues with "Star Wars" having sound in space or "Star Trek" spaceships slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time...and to save whales, no less?)

This discussion reminds me of a review I read of "Cars" where the critic disliked the movie because they could not accept the premise of talking automobiles. Come on! Animation, historically, has had as its central conceit animals and inanimate objects talking. Kinda like someone seeing a musical then complaining about characters bursting into song for no reason. All genres have their conventions; you just have to "go with them"...or not bother watching at all.

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-28-2006 10:00 PM

quote: Chad Souder
How does Superman shave?

With a very, very, very, very, very, very sharp razor?

Actually, if I remember from the old comic book days (and from a quick trip around Google), he uses his heat vision reflected off of a shiny piece of metal.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-28-2006 10:02 PM

quote: Michael Coate
If you have no trouble suspending your disbelief for comic book and fantasy elements such as a man flying or deflecting bullets or kicking a football hundreds of yards, I don't see why traveling through time should be any more difficult to accept. (Do you have issues with "Star Wars" having sound in space or "Star Trek" spaceships slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time...and to save whales, no less?)

Right, if you want believeability, watch a documentary... although many of them are pretty unbelievable these days.

quote: Michael Coate
Kinda like someone seeing a musical then complaining about characters bursting into song for no reason.

I read in a trivia book about a theatre owner in China or somewhere who was trying to squeeze in more shows of "The Sound Of Music." The movie was too long, so....he cut out all the songs.

| IP: Logged

Allison Parsons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 630
From: East Peoria, IL
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 06-28-2006 11:03 PM

Didn't Superman and Lois 'do it' when he LOST his powers in the second movie? Thus it should be that the kid shouldn't have his powers?

hmmm

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-28-2006 11:58 PM

I had trouble with that one as well Allison, but I figured it out.

Kent impregnated Lois when he was turned human, but when he reactivated the beam outside of the chamber to alter the physiology of the other three kryptonions, the newly created embryonic child of kal-el was originally human, but was reversed to kryptonian in the beam. It would only effect kryptonians, and would reverse whatever state they were in at the time.

That's all I could come up with, so I am good with it.

But what about the fortress of solitude... didn't superman sink it at the end of superman 2?

Ciao

| IP: Logged

Phil Blake
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 558
From: esperance western australia
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 06-29-2006 01:56 AM

what a great show! Superman has never been my all time favorite but this was very good indeed.

It moved well , it had a good balance of romance suspence action sprinkled with some slight comic moments. Effects were sensational.

Kevin Spacey was very good in his role .(loved his boat)

I also received a quality print with good focus and sound in DTS was superb.

It got a 4 out of 5 from me.

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-29-2006 04:01 AM

My wife and a I walked out of what felt like an expericienc, not a amovie. She is now slutting for Brrandan Rougth,,k, fine by me1

I cannot type today or tonightg..... the midnight medcs dkeeep me frokm making any asexnece of whaT IS GOING ABOIUGT AROUDN ME!@! hahahahahaahah

greag movie

Ciao

EDIT: Just to make sure everyone is aware, I have no recollection of ever making this post. Sleep walking is a terrible thing, so is sleep typing. Holy crap I need to watch those meds! [Eek!]

[ 06-29-2006, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Dave Williams ]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.