Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spy Kids 3D

This is topic Spy Kids 3D in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000612

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2003, 02:33 AM:

This summer's Crap-A-Thon continues with Robert Rodriguez's latest attempt at filmmaking for children. No wait, it isn't filmmaking because it isn't a film. Shot entirely on high definition video, no wait, it isn't really high definition video either. The whole friggin' movie is just really bad cgi! Ugh, ok to get on with the meat of the review...

The 3D flat out doesn't work. The right eye is almost perfect (and was in a few of the reels), but the left eye was terrible in most of the reels (only R3 on the particular print I screened was somewhat acceptable). You would think that someone would've double checked the prints to make sure the colors were compatible with the 3D glasses Miramax sent out to theaters. No wait, that would've been smart. Could someone please just send me a non-3D print to run instead of this piss poor excuse for 3D?

As far as the story and "acting" goes...stupid, stupid, stupid. There is a difference between good kid's movies and bad kid's movies. This is one of those bad kid's movies. In fact, the whole movie is just about kids being inside a video game. I have nothing remotely positive to say about this, except don't waste your time nor your money. I can't imagine how much Rodriguez had to pay all of those actors for cameos, but maybe he saved their lives or something and they were just paying him back the favor. Hopefully the government will step in and forbid Robert Rodriguez to make a Spy Kids 4.

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 07-25-2003, 02:49 AM:

I watched it, and actually liked the 3d effect. The storyline is kinda lame, but the cgi wasn't as bad as Brad stated. I've seen worse. As for the 3d effect, our print didn't create any problems, there was plenty of dimension to it. Granted, since it isn't a polariod setup things don't leap out at ya. But, stuff did pop off of the screen. The chase scene was very cool. The silver molten stuff was very Kewl. I was very impressed with the effects, but I don't think little kids will keep the glasses on. But, I suppose that is why the have elastic straps attached to them. [Smile]

Let's hope that Hollywood brings back more 3d soon. If any feature film this year had bad cgi, then the MATRIX should win it hands down.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-25-2003, 05:46 AM:

quote:
there was plenty of dimension to it

Like more than three? [Smile]

I wonder if I can learn how to make popcorn, because projecting [bs]

like Spy Kids 3D [puke]

is just embarrassing.

And you know what really sucks, is the lame [sex]

in' 3D glasses that are impossible to fit in a somewhat comfortable position over your eye glasses.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-25-2003, 05:50 AM:

Gosh Daryl! What a complainer!

>>>Phil

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-25-2003, 09:28 AM:

Buy some contacts then. Or laser surgery.

Posted by Paul Rich (Member # 243) on 07-25-2003, 11:18 AM:

As for Brad's problem viewing the 3-D, it may be a slight problem with your eyes. If one of your eyes is slightly weaker or you have convergence issues, then that can cause problems with the images lining up properly. I have the same problem. You may not even know you have a problem till you try to view something that requires good binocular vision.

As for the rapid hatred toward the movie, I just don't understand that. It's not a horrible film. It's pretty cool. Do you people enjoy having fun?

It's definitely the weakest of the three SK films. It's too short. The ending is weak. But it's still fun and has some funny moments. I especially enjoyed the performances by Bobby Edner, Ryan "Punk'd" Pinkston, and Robert Vito. I loved the opening of the film with Juni as a private eye.

As for the CGI being bad. How in the hell do you judge that? The whole thing is supposed to be a low resolution video game. The CGI isn't supposed to look real.

In the end, SK3 is a fun, harmless little film. It was obviously a project RR did just to have fun. RR is a continually fascinating filmmaker. He has now assumed the roles of production designer, director of photography, camera operator, costume designer, visual effects supervisor, editor, director, writer, producer, songwriter, composer, and probably more than that. He edits his films at his house so he can be with his family. Family is very important to RR, as is stated in the SK films.

So have a little fun. Chill out. Stay cool.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-25-2003, 11:29 AM:

Laser surgery doesn't protect me from exploding Fox reels. I don't need my glasses to see!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-25-2003, 12:09 PM:

I liked this movie. My vision is intact, so I enjoyed the 3D effects. The movie is simply structured, but fun to watch. I think it is a great movie for kids. For many of them, the 3D and the glasses and all that will be a new effect.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 07-25-2003, 01:26 PM:

I like it... the 3-D took a while to get used to. At first the colors were completly distorted but during about the 3rd reel my eyes got used to it and it started to look better. I think because this is a kids movie they could have done more with the 3-D to make it more prominant for the kids...things coming at you and such, I can only remember it doing that a couple of times.

The movie itself was kind of weak but not bad, a little fun for the kids! [Smile]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2003, 02:20 PM:

I've not had problems viewing other 3D movies, and since there were 2 other people who came in for about a reel and also complained of the exact same problem, I think this is an issue with the print. Do note that R3 of my print was noticeably better than the others, although I could see 3D effects on every reel, they had bad alignment issues. I doubt my eyes changed at the reel change splices.

As for the hatred to this movie, it's because the show is just damned stupid. Rodriguez used to make great films like Desperado, now he makes crap. That's not to say that this film won't do insane box office business though.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-25-2003, 08:06 PM:

makes me wonder how good once upon a time in mexico is going to be.

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 07-25-2003, 09:52 PM:

I had the same problem as Brad did with distortion between my two eyes. It seemed as though the Red was just a little too dark, possibly the filter on the glasses they sent out.

I did like the little concessions "plug" at the beginning of the movie by Alan Cummings character!

I wonder how long the actual script is for this movie seeing as the whole concept is based on WOWing people with the 3D instead of an actual plot. Maybe like 20 minutes? All in all I think this film did the job it was made to do........make money! It was a good new concept for a film that we dont see too often. It wasnt the best and certainly wasnt the worst.

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 07-25-2003, 10:30 PM:

It's bringing them in, kids, parents and grandparents. Everyone that has seen it young and old thought it was KEWL. As for the glasses, they are very well made. A heck of a lot better than other 3d films that I've seen. One little trick.... We've been telling the moviegoers to find seats near the screen for a better 3d effect. That has made cleaning a huge auditorium with stadium seats a breeze. Plus, it is better than the back rows.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 07-25-2003, 11:27 PM:

Of what I've seen of this movie, its complete [bs]

Admittedly I've only seen a few bits and pieces, however I too found the 3D effects to be very disappointing. After seeing several special venue 3D presentations I was very disappointed. To me the movie would a have been at least watchable in standard 2D. Rodriguez made a 2D version of this movie (it will be on the DVD supposedly). They should have released both of them, at least limited on one or the other format. I think they'd find that 3D is not the draw that they think it is.

On the plus side, the glasses are better than most I've seen, but not the best either.

If Hollywood keeps producing [bs]

like this, they need to look at other things besides piracy for lost revenue.

Posted by Paul Rich (Member # 243) on 07-25-2003, 11:34 PM:

Brad, you say SK3 is completely stupid and a piece of crap. How so? Please give examples.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2003, 11:55 PM:

Paul, you like it, that's great. I don't. This forum is not for discussing each other's opinions or why someone doesn't agree with yours, it is for reviews. Either post a review or abstain.

I've said all that is worth my time with this piece of [bs]

. I intentionally try to not get into specific details in my reviews so as to not ruin the movie for anyone who wishes to see it. You may feel free to disagree with my review, which you do. That's great, now go see it again.

Thankfully Rodriguez didn't waste any film shooting this!

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-26-2003, 12:10 AM:

I love the way the opening crdits read

"a ROBERT RODRIGUEZ digital file"

I also enjoyed the movie. It was just plain fun.The 3D only had 2 or 3 scenes where i noticed convergence issues. The movie is also very watchable w/o glasses, for those who prefer.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-26-2003, 12:12 AM:

Here's why I don't like it:

1. I think it treats kids like idiots. Granted, many kids are complete idiots, but not all of them, I wouldn't even say most of them.

2. I take (mildly) offense to the 'computer people' terminology that is used in the movie. Not only is it generally incorrect, I feel that it is pretty disrespectful of people in the past who spent a great part of their lives developing the computing machines we have today.

Whatever, maybe it's just that I haven't slept since Tuesday... I doubt it though.

BTW, I found the glasses are much more comfortable if you pull them tight around your head and tie the elastic off. While watching a scene from the booth today a buterfly nearly 'hit the port window'... I thought that was kinda neat, but it doesn't change the way I feel about the product as a movie.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-26-2003, 12:49 AM:

(has anybody made a sick, horrible, perverted joke involving 3-d and the main girl?) AHEM!

Not the best movie I've seen this summer, not the worst (until yesterday, I was not allowed to sit for more than one hour at a time, doctor's orders) I felt the CGI was intentionally bad
(SPOILER!!! The scene where he gets into the game the first time, knocks on the floor and says "Computer Generated")

There were a couple scenes which had convergence problems, I got eyestrain and had to take the glasses off for a few minutes.

Weak plot, awful acting, [bs]

-y script.

* (out of 4)

Presentation:
Newark Cinema Center 3
House 3 (the big one) 9:15 PM show.
Picture: ****
Sound: Optical Stereo ***

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-26-2003, 01:05 AM:

I also don't like the part where they explain that you might get eyestrain and that you should go to the concession stand where it'll apparently cost you $35 to purchase all the stuff they tell you. Gee... the place I worked at tonight it would only have cost about six bucks!

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 07-26-2003, 01:20 AM:

I thought it was fun and a nice novelty to bring people in the door during such a crappy summer. I do have binocular vision problems so my eyes were strained and there were convergence issues at times. I knew this would occur going in. Still Sly's multiple personalities were funny though corny. It's not supposed to be an award winner. The actors that do cameos realize this and just do it for the fun. I will say Juni has grown as an actor since the first. He still has work to do. And the concession plug was a JOKE...Who cares if it's only $6.00. It wasn't great but it will pay the bills and I didn't feel it was a waste of my time.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-26-2003, 02:05 AM:

I have not seen this movie and do not know if I will. All I want to know is the manner the film is presented and if all the theatres showing it had to install a silver screen and purchase special lenses to show the film or is Disney footing the entire cost for the special 3-D presenttion? All theatres here in Honolulu is showing the film on a single screen except the Dole Cannery who has scheduled the film on two screens.

-Claude

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-26-2003, 02:19 AM:

(((My eyes were throbbing at the end of this film.))) It was a fun movie for my son, who is 4, he loved it - and that is what counts....

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 07-26-2003, 02:52 AM:

Claude,
The 3D presentation is in anaglyphic 3D (blue and red) which requires no special "hardware" for the theater to install so everyone can see this. Miramax send out the 3D glasses and there is no extra cost for the theater to show this. It is shot with the special cameras and everything is done in the studio and is on 35mm film. Youre thinking of Polarized 3D which requires 2 projectors, special lenses, and non colored glasses.

I dont know a whole lot about 3D technology so Im sure others who are knowledgable can help you out and expand on what Im trying to say.

Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 07-26-2003, 11:09 AM:

Hello Everyone;

I never see a presentation of Spy Kids 3D In switzerland, but I'm agree with Brad to say this movie is a piece of [bs]

I only played in the multiplex where I'm working, the two movies (Spy kids & Spy kids 2) the theater still empty: Only few customers liked this movie. Other customers asked to the manager: Why do You programm crap like this on yours screens ?
I'm wondering the folowing: how percentage off movie are produced in the United States for movie theater, and witch percentage ot theses movie are exported worlwide ?
One distributors of movie said to me: You know, only the best movies from USA, arrives to Europe, the rest is only distribued on video-clubs"
Regardless to this commentary I'm affraid of the quality of the productions in USA. I remember me the quality of Vintage movies (My father every weeks made a film presentation at home) where the quality off actor's game was important; Do You think that quality off movies are really going down ?

Best Regards,

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-27-2003, 05:45 PM:

07/27/2003, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene, 12:30PM, House #3, digital sound (probably SR-D but not positive). Very good presentation - no complaints. Attendance about 50. I specifically chose this theater because the image quality is usually at least very good. Today was no exception: bright, steady, sharp. Wanted the 3D effect to have the best chance of "working".

This is a perfectly good summer popcorn flick that happens to have the "bonus" of being in 3D. And the 3D effect mostly works at least OK, and sometimes very well. Yeah, those glasses make the image a little dark and indistinct sometimes, but hell, it was in 3D and that was novelty enough for me. (I bet seeing this on an underlit screen would not be pleasant though.) Anyway the kids in the audience seemed to thoroughly enjoy it, lots of "Wow!" comments. I thoroughly enjoyed it myself. The story never dragged, the pacing was perfect I thought. Maybe I'm just getting soft-headed. :shrug: But I give it a strong [thumbsup]

.

And the sound mix seemed very good too. Gotta mention that.

They should make the reel-change cues 3D too! [Wink]

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 07-30-2003, 08:45 PM:

I had a fun time with the 3D and there is a great joke about going out for popcorn and drinks if you get eye strain from the glasses.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 07-31-2003, 12:33 AM:

This movie = [puke]

Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 07-31-2003, 09:08 AM:

The 3D Effects didn't work for me either. And am I the only one thats seen this in DLP? Anyway I don't think there is anything wrong with my eyes. I've seen other 3D films before, they were Polaroid 3D however.
Can't comment on the film, I didn't bother to actually watch it. I just wanted to see what the 3D would be like.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-31-2003, 09:24 AM:

Some people just can't view anaglyph 3D without getting eyestrain or poor 3D perception. The brain is challenged to make sense of two different-colored images unlike anything found in normal vision. For me, I see the 3D, but the color perception keeps shifting depending on which eye is dominant.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 07-31-2003, 10:12 AM:

I like the concessions plug, thought is was funny! People came out during the movie and actually commented on it while they were buying food. It was too bad the concessionist hadn't seen the movie yet because she had no idea what they were talking about.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-31-2003, 11:09 AM:

Mr. Pytlak says:

quote:
Some people just can't view anaglyph 3D without getting eyestrain or poor 3D perception.

A former wife-type person could not see 3-D due to some eye muscle problems. She could not converge the image. So, for a red-green screening that I was introducing I made her a special set of glasses with only the red image. She enjoyed the movie just fine.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-31-2003, 08:12 PM:

quote:
And am I the only one thats seen this in DLP?

Well, this "reviewer" for the Louisiana Weekly saw it in DLP,and here are some exerpts:

[snip] As American audiences seem to have their fill of summer franchise sequels full of "been there-done that" special effects, 3-D movies are making a strong come back to save the day and kick new life into family adventures with the little-league espionage dazzler Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over (Dimension Films).

New Orleans was on a special traveling itinery to bring a Digital Projection demo for last night's thrilling 3-D screening presentation, a visual clarity so great, it will revolutionize the way films are seen in the future . We desperately need these new Digital Theatres here, bypassing celluloid and its many defects of pops, clicks, and flickers. Digital will also avoid detracting scratches that, from time to time, attack the film's emulsion and turns bright images into ugly, black, roadside tire track "marks" when projected on a magnified screen.

Even though Spy Kids will open here today in film format, it will still reveal a true 3-D sensation the way writer/director Robert Rodriguiz has envisioned it. With new technology, 3-D processing is almost instantaneous, put on you anaglyphic red-and-blue "spy glasses" and watch things fall out of the screen. What's more important, Rodriguez's new procedure will enable all theatres to show three dimensions, because theatre owners need no other devises!

So grab a seat, put on your red/blue spectacles, and enjoy audacious strokes of deep color and spine-tingling innovations from the mind of Rodriguez, like floating robot heads, hurtling pogo toads, spewing lava balls and cyber-bikes that create a never-before seen exhibition of fun and fantasy in the cinema world today. [snip].

[snip] A treasury for the whole family, Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over presents state-of-the-art 3-D illustrations and marvelous stunts created by memorable computer magic. We are now facing the future with both eyes wide open to red and blue images, and the depths and delights ahead seem infinite! This film is going to make tons of money and a triumphant return to 50's 3-D films. [snip]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-01-2003, 08:34 AM:

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-01-2003, 11:16 AM:

OK, now that I have actually seen the film.

First of all, this is pretty lame. No real plot, just flashy graphics. I did enjoy the jigsaw platform that kept building and unbuilding itself while "characters" fought across them, but that was IT! I really am not going to criticize any of the performers here. As awful as they were, I suspect they gave exactly the performances the director was looking for.

As far as this "revolutionary 3-D system is concerned, I had the same experience as Brad. While at many times I did see depth and leaps from the screen, the fact is, the red side just didn't properly block out the red images, giving a VERY obvious ghosting effect. The blue side, on the other hand, was MUCH better at blocking out the blue elements. But even if the colors were dead-on, this is still a TERRIBLE way to present color 3-D. The blue side actually allows some color to come through, but the red side makes everything look red.

And the special effects are WAY off base in some scenes, with characters FLOAT walking over grids and floors in some shots.

Maybe this film will appeal to today's kids. However, I would think kids would be more driven to actually PLAY video games then to passively watch them on the big screen (3-D notwithstanding, I almost see this as a barrier to involvement in the story; that is, if there IS one).

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-01-2003, 11:21 AM:

The local newspaper ran a front-page story about SK3D this morning, complete with a photograph. The angle was how much young kids seem to like the whole 3D glasses thing. Apparently the reporter found lots of kids at the mall (where Cinemark 17 is) wearing the 3D glasses and refusing to take them off.

Harvey Weinstein couldn't buy publicity like this (though he's probably tried). [Cool]

Paul: Did you have *fun* watching it? I did. I decided early on that I didn't care that the 3D wasn't dead-on perfect, or that the story and performances were borderline at best. It was a fun movie that had me smiling when I left the theatre. On that basis, I still say [thumbsup]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-01-2003, 07:53 PM:

David:

No, I didn't have fun while watching it. I found it mind-numbingly bad. And I don't think it is because I have lost the kid in me, either. While some of the visuals were creative. the lack of a creative concept kept my mind from paying attention.

And yes, the 3-D technology DID bother me. Why in the world after so many years of development in 3-D technology should this be acceptable is beyond me.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-02-2003, 11:33 AM:

A footnote: Immediately after seeing the movie and leaving the theatre, I was hyper-aware of my surroundings being in 3D. Very strange. It was like my brain was briefly "tricked" into processing visual information a little differently.

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 08-05-2003, 12:04 AM:

Shankweiler's Drive-In (PA) Tuesday, 7/29/03. Couldn't pass up the chance to see what 3-D would look like at this famous single-screen drive-in! Presentation top-notch as always, and since screen illumination is good there, the glasses didn't hurt things too much. Fun movie, and the large audience of kids on their lawn chairs and blankets had a great time-their playing football under the screen before the show didn't hurt either! Great, great place.