This is topic Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) 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=002196
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-27-2016, 09:14 AM:
 
CINEMA: Cinemark Movies 12, Ames, IA
AUDITORIUM: 7
PRESENTAATION: Mystery Meat Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]
RATING: One and one half stars (out of four)

What's THIS? The outside ticket window is OPEN? It's been YEARS since I've seen it staffed, day or night. There's also two concession lines open and rhe snake line posts are out at the ticket taker. And when I was leaving, they had the satellite cncession stand open. WOW.

THE PLOT: Martha Kent is kidnapped. Wackiness ensues.

Martha Kent getting kidnapped actually happens about two-thirds through the movie. Everything prior to that is a slow and boring, soul-crushing, no-fun-to-watch building of political tension between Batman and Superman that is supposed to lead to the big fight, which lasts about five minutes and is completely fucking stupid and pointless and there's still a whole bunch of movie after it where Wonder Woman shows up for no reason and hints are made towards the existence of Aquaman, Shazam, and...I don't know...maybe the governor of Colorado?

Superhero movies are supposed to be fun to watch, and the only thing fun here for the first two thirds is Lawrence Fishburne's character. The only laugh moments (there are two) happen towards the end. What DC and Warner need to do is let the people behind The Flash and Arrow handle the movies. Those are two of the best shows on television right now. They know how to perfectly balance action, drama, and humor.

They know how to make something fun to watch .
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-27-2016, 12:06 PM:
 
Studio Movie Grill Royal Lane, Dallas, TX
70MM with DTS (Datasat) Digital Sound

Presentation was of course SPECTACULAR. 70MM just trounces 2K in your average multiplex. And that's what you'll get if you see it anywhere because the DCP is 2K. Thank you WB for making prints. DTS sound was spot on. The finely tuned room helps.

Now for the movie itself...

Some will love it. Others will hate it. I rather enjoyed it. I walked out happy, which is a good sign. I won't spoil anything but I liked how they handled the dichotomy between the two heroes. Could it have been better? Yes. But in the pantheon of Batman and Superman films, it stands as a good one. It's not Batman and Robin and it's not the Dark Knight but it's good.

I enjoyed it much more than the Avengers films, but I am a big Batman fan.
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-27-2016, 10:20 PM:
 
Somewhere inside this 2 hour and 30 minute so-so movie is a 1 hour and 55 minute really good movie. Somebody somewhere will come out with a "Phantom Edit".

Way too many dream sequences none of which seem necessary in fact, I believe they were only in the movie so that they could then be cut into the trailers to keep an Internet buzz. So that is kind of a cheap manipulation in my book. Anyway, overall I did enjoy it but am waiting for Civil War to blow this out of the water...
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-27-2016, 11:40 PM:
 
Sad to say, I'm not all that jazzed about Civil War either. Superheroes fighting each other is the hot new trend? And now the studios are juicing the movies by having unexpected cross-studio superheroes show up in them, but ruining those surprises by putting them in the trailers. All the while churning out these cookie-cutter, "edgy," dark, multiple-subplot stories that you forget about as soon as you walk out of the theater.

Egads, I miss the '70s with the cheesy Superman movies that were self-contained stories and had happy endings without cliffhangers.

Oh well - guess I'll shut up on this till I see the movie at hand.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 03-28-2016, 12:46 AM:
 
Well, with the Warner Bros banking all they got at this chaotic DC mash up, you'd think somewhere in all of this would be a decent script? Well, sadly no, there isn't. Batman v Superman is an all-around disappointment, from it's mess of a script, poor directing, and most importantly, a lacking story. The story should be simple; Batman (Ben Affleck) thinks Superman (Henry Cavill) is bad, Superman thinks Batman is bad, they are set up into fighting each other. While that's there, it's cluttered by many unfortunate faults. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luther was goddamn annoying, and it just became enough with the whole "let me rephrase this old statement" crap. His chemistry with the senator (Holly Hunter) also felt rather strange. Doomsday was another huge disappointment, as he basically becomes your average one-dimensional CGI monster who looks like he belongs in a Godzilla movie instead. Wonder Woman, while I liked Gal Gadot's performance, just felt a bit forced at times and she only added to all the craziness when it came down to the final battle.
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
With that all said, I did like a couple things about the film. Ben Affleck's Batman was pretty decent, and with some better material to work with (and hopefully a solo movie), I believe he can pull off the character on his own terms. Henry Cavill's Superman was decent enough, but I didn't like his performance as much as I did in Man of Steel. Amy Adams also tried her best as Lois Lane with what's there, but I wish she had more to do towards the end. Jeremy Irons' Alfred was also pretty good, no Michael Caine, but still enjoyable. I also liked Batman's "Knightmare" sequence.
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Superman's encounter with ghost Kevin Costner was also not that bad. Overall, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is not what it should of been. It lacked a solid script, featured a director with way too much control, rarely felt like an "entertaining" movie, and just had lots of annoying and unnecessary characters and situations in it to make you feel the dark and realistic feeling that the movie was trying to go for. Not to forget, but the ending was also ridiculous. I'm hoping this new DC movie universe will improve over time, but as of right now, I'm not enjoying what it has delivered.
Film: 1 and a half out of 4 stars
Presentation: 2 out of 4 stars (saw it in IMAX 3D, and the 3D looked off at multiple spots during the movie, there was an annoying glare on the screen that looked duplicated with the 3D. I'm curious if this was just my theater or if others are experiencing this problem as well? Otherwise, good sound mix, especially during that climatic battle.)
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-28-2016, 12:51 AM:
 
Esquire IMAX Theatre, Sacramento

2K digIMAX 3D

digIMAX nXos 5.1 sound with speakers here, here, here, here, and here. And the subwoofer's here (stole that from the old audio preshow at this theater)

I enjoyed this sequel to Suckerpunch. I wouldn't consider it popcorn fare like the Marvel films, having very dark and violent tone and I question any parent that brings a child under 10 to the theater to watch it. Keep them at home watching Supergirl instead. They'll grow up thinking the world's a wonderful place, unlike the San Francisco and Oakland - I mean Metropolis and Gotham - portrayed in this film.

I noticed two scenes filmed with IMAX cameras where the image enlarged and the picture became clearer - both action scenes. Very long action scenes. If Zak Snyder would realize that he's not Christopher Nolan and cut all of his post-Watchman films by an hour, the pace would be much more tolerable.

WonderWoman's reveal was the highlight of the film. Interpret that as you will. I felt Affleck has solidified his place as one of the top three on-screen Batmen, but unfortunately, I have to place him at the bottom of the list for portraying Bruce Wayne. Comic fans will enjoy that at least two (I personally noted two) pivotal comic story lines from the Superman and Batman franchises were integrated into the film.

I really started enjoying this film much more than I should have once I realized that Lex Luthor's appearance is one long homage to Alex, Malcom McDowell's character in A Clockwork Orange - completed through the selection of camera speed and angles, music, costume, props, and even dialogue.

The cherry on top for this screening was when the woman next to me, who turned out to be a counselor at a drug rehab clinic, exclaimed "The Flash looks just like a junkie!"
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-28-2016, 02:02 AM:
 
With all of the bashing this movie has gotten for at least a year, I went in to this not really expecting much of anything from it except maybe some loud explosions and cool looking effects. Maybe that's why I was a little surprised to see that --- I actually kind of liked it. I didn't think it was anywhere near awesome. But it was certainly good. It had some flaws though. So let's discuss those.

The seizure cam really gets on my freakin' nerves. Especially when there is no reason for it at all. It doesn't help tell the story. It stops me from seeing the story that's being told. It's a distraction, for many probably a subliminal distraction, but a distraction none the less. I really wish Hollywood would cut it out. I feel like some day film historians will look back on this period and shake their head at how much decent story telling was completely blown by this stupid technique. I can hear the guy on Turner Classics now, "While this move does suffer from that horribly misguided fad from early 21st century film making of shaking the camera around to make you feel uneasy, it is still pretty watchable. So if it gets too intense, just squint at the screen and enjoy - Batman vs. Superman, Dawn of Justice on TMC." Someone Turner, Jr. may even try to remove the shakes at a later date. But I'm certain it will be frowned upon by later generations as a terrible film making trend that never should have happened.

Another thing that bothered me was the fake 3D looked horrible in some scenes. Several scenes had backgrounds that literally looked like view-master style images or cardboard cutouts or something. This is something else that pisses me off about Hollywood. Let me ask a question here. Seriously... is it really all that much more difficult to just shoot both eyes at the same time rather then spend a huge amount of money for someone to try to create the second eye out of thin air? Seriously. What the hell? Some converted 3D looks ok. But all of it looks converted. Just shoot in 3D for fucks sake. It's like shooting in black and white and colorizing later. Stupid stupid stupid. They were pretty good at it by the end of the 3D run in the 50s. With a 250 million dollar budget why can't you clowns figure it out? Sorry. If you want to do it, do it and do it right.

Next, the action scenes. Ugh, the action scenes. First of all, can we stop with destroying an entire city in every movie? It's old already. I'm not saying you can't blow stuff up. Everyone likes a good explosion and a building coming down. But for crying out loud. Enough with taking out the whole damn city every time. Avengers is guilty of this too. I get it. I'm just tired of it. It's not interesting anymore. Do something else please. It's like you keep trying to outdo each other by destroying a bigger and bigger city - or more of a city. You've become a parody of yourself. Secondly on the action scenes - back the hell up! If the frame is just all white and red for three seconds - you're probably too close. I can't tell what the hell is going on. Also if you're in IMAX and/or 3D - you have to tone down "being in the middle of the action" a little bit. It's not impressive if I can't make it out. I don't feel like I'm in the middle of anything if I can't see it. That to me is a failure in story telling.

Technical failings aside, I actually did like the story and (for the most part) enjoy the movie. I wouldn't pay to see it again in a theater unless I see it in 70mm (I'll be in London for a week starting Tuesday, so maybe!) But if it were on TV I'd watch it.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-28-2016, 04:38 PM:
 
You pour in some USD 250M and all you get is something that could best be described as follows: Well, it could've been worse.

So, let's focus on the technical parts:

1. Fix your goddamn 3D you amateurs. I'm not sure what you did here, but it's screwed. Why even release it in 3D if you cannot get it right?

2. What's the point of wasting 70mm stock if your cameramen use the grainiest stock available for large parts of your film and ask a bunch of Parkinson patients to operate the cameras? Is it only to feed the ego of the director and producers?

3. It's great to know this is a Dolby Vision release, boasting more colors. Makes sense... Since it was shot in the most desaturated colors known to men. Why not shoot The Justice League Episode I, Season 1, Part One in Black and White already?

By the way Zack, why didn't you call Peter Jackson when that Orkish Troll thing escaped from the Middle Earth set and somehow landed on yours?
 
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-28-2016, 07:33 PM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
What's the point of wasting 70mm stock if your cameramen use the grainiest stock available for large parts of your film and ask a bunch of Parkinson patients to operate the cameras? Is it only to feed the ego of the director and producers?
I did make the effort to go out and see this in 5/70mm today and I was thinking the same. The grain would shift from pretty large and noticeable to minimal and hard to notice. I later read that the flashback to Bruce's parents' death was shot in 15/70. I couldn't tell because I wasn't seeing it in IMAX, yet I could see that flashback was grainy as a stylistic choice. To compare, Interstellar's 35mm scenes had much more finer grain blown up to 5/70, but it was softer (also I saw Interstellar at the late Ziegfeld theater, which had a bigger screen).

The least grainy and clearest scenes in BvS were one of the many dream sequences and the titular battle, which I assume are shot in 15/70. Then there was a shot during the latter of Henry Cavill which was so eerily clean it felt out of place in a grainfest and looked too processed to me, namely on his face.

I assume the 70mm prints were recorded from a 4K digital intermediate. Didn't see any obvious digital artifice like I did for The Muppets (2011) in 35mm, but hey the DCP is 2K and this may be the closest we get to a 4K screening. BvS benefited superior contrast from the 70mm print than any xenon digital screening I've seen.
 
Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 03-28-2016, 09:05 PM:
 
Cinema: Cinemark Tinseltown USA & IMAX
Auditorium: IMAX
Presentation: Digital IMAX 2K 3D
Presentation Problems: None
Rating: 2/5

A dreary, angry movie which mashes two of our most famous comic book characters together as if they're Hot Wheels cars. Tons of issues, in terms of pacing and plot development, but it isn't as bad as Man of Steel. It just tried to put too much on its plate, opening tons of plot threads, and then resolving like two of them. The battle between our two heroes feels forced, and uncomfortable, because instead of exploring the tensions between Batman and Superman, we instead focus on setting up the Justice League movies in the most forced way. A missed opportunity if there ever was one, oh well.

I went and saw this on the same day that my American Cinematographer issue showed up, that covered the film's production. Bizarrely, they scanned the 35mm negative at 2K, and the IMAX and standard 65mm negative at 8K, for a final Digital Intermediate of 4K. This might explain some weird grain issues, and whatnot, with the upscaling of certain sources.

I nearly swore off IMAX digital after poor presentations of Crimson Peak and Star Wars: Episode 7, but I was surprisingly pleased with Batman v Superman in IMAX. The 3D was worthless, as they shot anamorphic for the majority of the feature, but there was some alright detail in the image for how close we all sat to the 2K image. The IMAX 15/70 scenes, presented in 1.90:1, were by far some of the best looking I've seen in digital 2K. That being said, there were only 4 scenes in the entire film presented that way, which is a pretty huge disappointment. Oh well.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2016, 10:11 PM:
 
What's the deal with all the desaturated colors in action movies today? All the engineers who worked so hard to make it possible to have realistic colors in photographic imagery (not to mention the Steadicam) must spin in their graves when they see some of the crap that passes for cinematography these days.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-29-2016, 03:25 PM:
 
It's hard to look into the collective heads of those who are involved. But I'm rather sure it's a bit of a mixed grill with many menu options. Those below are just the starters:

- It's hip and cool to be desaturated. Or: all those other guys are doing it, it must be great, right?
- A dark looking movie conveys a certain level of maturity and seriousness. This certainly isn't just your PG-rated comic book adaptation anymore.
- Technicolor charges more for bits with higher numbers.
- The special effects department charges less to paste a dark grey foreground onto a dark brown background, compared to a full-res high octane colorfest, where every misguided digital matte hackjob will take center stage.
 
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 03-29-2016, 07:37 PM:
 
Marcel, you just reminded me of an egregious shot from this movie when
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
that reminded me of an old matte painting effect from a late-80s/early-90s movie.

For anyone who saw this movie like the rest of the world did (2K), did the VFX/CGI stand out just as bad as my 70mm experience, stand out worse, or was it not that noticeable due to the 2K resolution?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-01-2016, 01:32 AM:
 
Let's not forget this deleted scene
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2016, 10:39 PM:
 
Looking at Batman on the poster we have in the lobby..... how can he even move in that suit? Is Batman animated most of the time? That'll probably be the case soon -- our cartoon superheroes will come full circle and be cartoons again.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-04-2016, 04:14 PM:
 
quote: Connor Wilson
that reminded me of an old matte painting effect from a late-80s/early-90s movie.
I know exactly which effect you mean. And no, it didn't look all that rosy in 2K either, but it also didn't really stand out as the worst special effect either. I guess the 70mm version doesn't play nice on shortcuts, which would otherwise drown in pixel-goo.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Looking at Batman on the poster we have in the lobby..... how can he even move in that suit? Is Batman animated most of the time?
My first thought when he came dressed in that suit was: Well, that sure looks comfy and really very practical... Then I imagined: Sure, it must be full of bionic goodies... With that in mind, it made it look an awful lot like a clunky version of Iron Man actually. Which is strange, since I've always felt Iron Man to be the discount Marvel version Bat Man.
 
Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 04-04-2016, 06:43 PM:
 
quote: Brad Miller
Let's not forget this deleted scene
Oh wow. I think this was actually better than the whole movie. It's cool how Kimmel and Affleck are pretty good friends so they can put stuff like this together.

Oh, I guess I could add my own comment about BvS. I saw it at Universal IMAX and the presentation was actually great. I've seen 3 movies so far with their new laser system and this was the first one that left me impressed (note: I'm a bit bias since I work with Dolby Vision every day). When it opened up to full aperture, my mind was blown. The image detail and clarity was stunning. I'd be willing to say it looked as good as a 15/70 print which I didn't think was possible yet. The sound was 'meh' but I've never been a fan of IMAX audio.

As for the movie, I thought the 3rd act was a lot of fun but the first two acts were pretty painful. The script was atrocious and Lex was literally The Joker at the end of the movie. WTF?
 
Posted by Aron Toplitsky (Member # 6950) on 04-05-2016, 01:00 PM:
 
Saw this at Universal City Walk IMAX Laser 2D this past weekend. I will get to that in a minute.

Going into this movie I was hoping the negative reviews were exaggerated. I did like the film but didn’t love it. I liked the story, but like most I felt the story wasn’t told very well. Will the extra half hour for blu ray make it a better film? Perhaps. I didn’t realize until after I got home and watched an easter egg video on youtube, that there would be so many comic book references. Those went over my head since I never read DC comics. I think that’s also one of the problems with BvsS, too many insider references. I read Zack Snyder made the choice to cut the ½ hour while the studio was all for it. I’m not so sure that was a wise choice, then again could I have endured another half hour, even after the 900 trailers that were shown?

(**Spoiler next if anyone cares**) During opening weekend I saw a different film at the Arclight Hollywood and poked my head in on the 5/70 presentation. It was during the scene in which Superman speaks with his mom before she is kidnapped. I thought it looked really good with the exception of quite a bit of grain. Honestly grain doesn’t bother me, which brings me to the IMAX Laser version. I noticed only some to very little grain during the entire movie and that same scene did not look nearly as grainy in IMAX Laser. It was so refreshing to not be forced to endure a 3D viewing and I’d love to know who was responsible for that choice. Star Wars IMAX Laser 3D at this same theater was a disappointment and since then, I’ve decided unless a film is shot in it, I’m done with 3D and refuse to pay for it! I asked the front desk kid to please let management know and stressed, future 2D IMAX showings would be preferred. I also tweeted AMC thanking them.

So the 2D image looked great but of course the IMAX footage was, as Mike Schulz said….STUNNING! I am truly amazed at how they can project an image that large and look like 15/70, if not better! Those scenes alone were worth the price of admission. As a sound nut, I thought it was a good sound mix/design but not great. I wish there hadn't been so much wall to wall music and the effects were allowed to shine a little.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2016, 02:43 PM:
 
I watched this last night with a friend who is a huge Bat-fan, and we both enjoyed it a lot. He thought it was "fantastic," I thought it was "pretty good" which is high praise from me for a superhero movie. I liked the moral questions it raised -- Superman being a save-the-day type of guy WOULD play badly in some situations, especially when people are killed. For once, the base story was believable.

I liked how it gave both of the characters a reason to want to beat down the other one, without it seeming too contrived. (I had been worried about that.) And, I liked the dilemma Supe faced just before the final battle -- it kind of harked back to the dilemma he faced in the first Superman movie in the 70s, and the solution this time made more sense than in the older film.

Seems like most of the reviewers hated the Lex Luthor character. I thought he was kind of creepy/fun. He didn't get on my nerves like I was expecting him to.

The chase scene with the Batmobile was a huge disappointment, partly because I am up to here with indestructible vehicles, and the thing was filmed so chaotically that it was impossible to tell what was going on.

I also don't get the whole "glowing eyes" thing that is now apparently the default for Batman and Iron Man and others. Sure it makes them look more menacing, but it's sort of like those crystal clear computer screens that were all the rage a while ago -- just because you CAN show something doesn't mean you should. The only guy glowing eyes make sense on is Superman since he has the whole heat vision thing going on.

I agree Wonder Woman felt tacked on. I hate that they revealed her presence in the posters, trailers, pretty much everywhere. It would have been SO much better if she'd been a huge surprise.

I was hoping for a few more bits of humor. At one point where Superman throws Batman through a wall, it would have been cool if he'd left a bat-shaped opening. Or, they could have had Batman grumbling, "I promised we wouldn't destroy the city this time!" Stuff like that.

Those gripes aside, the trailers made it look like this movie was going to be a big sludgefest, but it was surprisingly light on its feet. It did not seem overlong to me. The big fight scene was overblown just like they all are, but the story had some good surprises and twists and sets up the forthcoming movies well.

I don't really see the need to make a longer BluRay version, although I might be a customer if they show Lois Lane's boobs in the bathtub scene.

3 out of 5 stars.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 04-09-2016, 06:40 PM:
 
I encountered my first first superhero smackdown in 1991 in the graphic novel Judgement on Gotham, a story which pitted Judge Dredd against Batman. Judge Dredd is a hard-line law enforcing thug and Batman is a righteous vigilante - it was easy to see why the pair would not get along. It was a hero versus anti-hero scenario.

With Batman versus Superman, however, it's not quite so easy to see the conflict as they are both clearly on the "hero" side of the equation. But director, Zack Snyder, does a reasonable job of pulling this together by tapping into a problem which many viewers had with his prior film, Man of Steel.

Batman, like many of us, heavily resents the heavy public toll resulting from Superman's urban clash with General Zod. This is understandable but when Batman determines to kill Superman in response, whoah, that's a whole different level again and Snyder never quite convinces why two honourable superheroes would wish to assassinate each other. Not even a zero tolerant Megacity judge with a penchant for police brutality went there!

In contrast with popular opinion, it seems, I quite like what Snyder is attempting with the Superman tale. It's a fascinating prospect to put this extra terrestrial man of steel into a contemporary setting and look at how, in all likelihood, the public would react to an alien with almost limitless power. In messianic fashion, some would surely revere this figure, but the bulk would treat him with suspicion and fear of what he could do to us were he to turn "rogue".

This is very close to the line Christopher Nolan took with his Batman films, of course, (and it's notable that Nolan is a producer of Snyder's Superman films) but Snyder is not the storyteller that Nolan is and the result is a Superman film which is grubbier than even Nolan's Batman. Indeed, Snyder's rendering of the Batfleck is just plain nasty and psychotic as he steamrolls through Gotham, branding criminals with his hot iron knuckle batdusters. Snyder has taken Nolan's balanced grubbiness - and Watchmen-ified it. Substitute Superman for Mr Manhattan and Batman for Rorschach and you pretty much have it.

But while this tone may be passable in Gotham, it sits a little less comfortably with Metropolis. Superman is a messiah figure and dragging him through a Gotham-like quagmire of corruption and dishonour besmirches his brand to its detriment. It's an uneasy and uncomfortable mix for our Kryptonian white knight and Snyder only narrowly gets away with it.

On the whole, I quite like Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, (I even saw it twice) but I like it more for the ideas that Snyder is attempting to relate rather than his success in reaching that goal.

7 out of 10
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2016, 08:40 PM:
 
A trend that's pretty much run its course for me is the requirement of an ever-bigger, grosser, or more powerful "enemy" in all these movies. And they always find some way to say the enemy is "unkillable" just before they find a way to kill it.

Even in Superman II, when the enemy was 3 times as bad (because there were 3 of them), the story still stayed on a human level with human risks and didn't go so deep into sci-fi territory.

I blame rampant CGI for most of this -- it has really ruined a lot of action movies, in my opinion.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-23-2016, 04:02 PM:
 
saw this initially in Dolby Cinema over at Tyson's - that was a mixed bag. Then again in IMAX-laser - of course because a few scenes were actually shot in 4:3 AR, the experience was superior (also I hated the pseudo d-box aspect of Dolby Cinema - how distracting). Also I didn't think that neither the Atmos or the 12-channel mix were all that - highly bombastic for it's own good. As to the movie I liked it, will get the 4K UHD "R-rated" edition
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2