Saw "Superman Returns" [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Saw "Superman Returns"



kexodusc
06-28-2006, 08:04 AM
Wasn't bad...wasn't great, so I was a bit disappointed - but I still enjoyed the movie.
I can't blame anyone for it being what it was - I think the noble Super Hero type that Superman is prevents any writer/director from showing a dark, more interesting side of Superman like we saw in "Batman Begins".
So given what they had to work with - pretty good Superman movie. Nice touch using Brando, Kevin Spacey did a great job, and there were some interesting devlopments.
Nowhere near as good as teh X-Men or Spiderman movies though. I think maybe society has just had its fill of Superman.

Geoffcin
06-28-2006, 08:58 AM
Wasn't bad...wasn't great, so I was a bit disappointed - but I still enjoyed the movie.
I can't blame anyone for it being what it was - I think the noble Super Hero type that Superman is prevents any writer/director from showing a dark, more interesting side of Superman like we saw in "Batman Begins".
So given what they had to work with - pretty good Superman movie. Nice touch using Brando, Kevin Spacey did a great job, and there were some interesting devlopments.
Nowhere near as good as teh X-Men or Spiderman movies though. I think maybe society has just had its fill of Superman.

Because two local papers, Newsday & The NY Daily News gave it four stars. In any case Pirates II comes out this weekend, so Superman is going to have to settle for half the box. (or less)

kexodusc
06-28-2006, 10:02 AM
Because two local papers, Newsday & The NY Daily News gave it four stars. In any case Pirates II comes out this weekend, so Superman is going to have to settle for half the box. (or less)

Reviews have been mixed from what I've seen, CNN didn't care for it, NBC seem to like it...
I'm not bashing the movie at all - I think it came across very well. Given the recent X-Men, Spiderman, and even Batman movies, I was hoping it'd be comparable - I just didn't feel it was quite at that level. Still good though! Just not as good as I hoped for. Considering it's Superman, who would probably get voted the greatest superhero ever, you have high expectations. I think a real super bad guy that poses a threat to Superman might have helped - an arch-nemesis with bad ass super powers or something.

It was MUCH better than Superman IV...if you're a Superman fan at all, you'll want to see it in theaters, if you're just a casual fan, you might want to wait for it to hit DVD.

Above average, but not a blockbuster.

Pirates II is gonna kick Superman's @ss

kexodusc
06-28-2006, 10:06 AM
By the way, the music WAS EXCELLENT! It really fit the pace of the movie and helped sell what we were watching. John William's tune was probably the most memorable, and the new songs by John Ottman sound a helluva lot like the Deep Space Nine theme, but it worked....

Geoffcin
06-28-2006, 10:12 AM
Pirates II is gonna kick Superman's @ss

Figure a ~100m weeked for this one.

kexodusc
06-28-2006, 10:37 AM
Figure a ~100m weeked for this one.

No kidding - I've seen the first one at least a dozen times and I still don't get tired of watching it - it's one of those timeless, family thrill ride movies - like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Goonies...

topspeed
06-28-2006, 10:45 AM
No kidding - I've seen the first one at least a dozen times and I still don't get tired of watching it - it's one of those timeless, family thrill ride movies - like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Goonies...
:skep:

Geoffcin
06-28-2006, 11:13 AM
No kidding - I've seen the first one at least a dozen times and I still don't get tired of watching it - it's one of those timeless, family thrill ride movies - like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Goonies...
Everyone talks about Johnny Depps perfomance, but I really liked Geoffrey Rush as Barbarossa. He pretty much stole every scene he was in. Kiera Knightly had the "princess Leia" thing going too. You can bet she saw that movie a few times!

Woochifer
06-28-2006, 05:54 PM
I've also heard mixed things about Superman Returns. Roger Ebert, for one, did not like it, and he generally has a greater appreciation for the comic/superhero genre than a lot of other film critics (he might also have high expectations given that the original Superman has been his long-time benchmark for the genre).

One criticism that seems to run through a lot of the reviews is that Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth are not up to the task. My observation is that both actors seem a bit young (mid-20s) to play these roles -- for one thing, Superman is supposed to have gone away for five years. But, I figure that with Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey, at least part of the movie will be worth watching!

Right now, I still need to check out Cars, so I might put Superman Returns on the backburner until I get down to L.A. in a couple of weeks and watch it on one of the big screens down there.

kexodusc
06-29-2006, 03:36 AM
One criticism that seems to run through a lot of the reviews is that Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth are not up to the task. My observation is that both actors seem a bit young (mid-20s) to play these roles -- for one thing, Superman is supposed to have gone away for five years. But, I figure that with Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey, at least part of the movie will be worth watching!

It felt an aweful lot like the way the original Superman felt. And I got a sense that Routh was playing Reeve playing Superman, instead of playing Superman. And Bosworth was rather unspectacular, but her character didn't come across as Louis Lane at all and I think that was more the writing than her.

Still, not a flop like The Hulk, not bad.


Right now, I still need to check out Cars, so I might put Superman Returns on the backburner until I get down to L.A. in a couple of weeks and watch it on one of the big screens down there.

I liked Cars too, but I just watched the Incredibles again the day before Cars and there's just no comparison - I'm doing it to myself hoping the next big film will always be better than the last. Might be awhile before something tops The Incredibles, but Owen Wilson was a great choice for Lightning McQueen, and Cars was definitely miles ahead of Robots.

Defshep
06-30-2006, 04:50 PM
The movie really paid homage to Richard Donner's (superior) film. Unfortunately, that was the best part of it. Superman looked airbrushed, plastic. Routh, however, captured Reeve's Clark Kent perfectly. Spacey was watchable as always. Bosworth looks too young to believe she is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.
Overall, it's a good movie. Just not a super one.

RGA
07-01-2006, 12:30 AM
Wasn't bad...wasn't great, so I was a bit disappointed - but I still enjoyed the movie.
I can't blame anyone for it being what it was - I think the noble Super Hero type that Superman is prevents any writer/director from showing a dark, more interesting side of Superman like we saw in "Batman Begins".
So given what they had to work with - pretty good Superman movie. Nice touch using Brando, Kevin Spacey did a great job, and there were some interesting devlopments.
Nowhere near as good as teh X-Men or Spiderman movies though. I think maybe society has just had its fill of Superman.


I might see it this weekend -- It opened here in Korea on June 28. It seems only the big releases open at the same time as CRASH was here just a month ago for the first time.

Anyway, the first two Superman movies are going to be hard to beat -- With Gen Hackman playing Lex -- even Spacey won't play it that tongue in cheek with today's audiences expecting more of a Lex from Smallville type. Reeves was an unknown largely at that time but Kidder had a lot of presence.

I actually preferred the Superman II which was about as good as a sequel can be. Part 3 stunk and 4 was one of the worst pieces of junk to be filmed.

So another Superman has a lot to live up to. We'll see -- if it's reasonably good I'll be happy.

The New X-Man film was rather abysmal -- some of it just blatantly makes no sense. Good effects though and no complaints with the performances. As usual -- too many characters and little character development. That whole series needed less characters and more story.

Spiderman 2 is maybe the best comic book story I have yet seen so far. Superman 2 would probably be next. Batman Begins was also quite excellent. (the rest of the Batmans Stunk).

kexodusc
07-01-2006, 04:31 AM
I thought X3 was disappointing, but still much better than either spiderman movie...Those are way to Hollywood love story and too much forced conflict/emotion...I like them, but they drag on so much...comic super hero movies shouldn't have much character development at all - that's been the problem. Most of their fans and even the casual viewer know the characters enough anyway - especially by the sequels. You can't develop spiderman or superman, or the XMen main characters anymore than 70 years of pop-culture already has, especially in 2 hour film. And it's not surprising so many people criticize writers and producers for trying to reinvent these characters in their movies - you don't rewrite Jesus in biblical films, don't rewrite superheroes either!!!
Time for plot development, and no more teasing love stories. Or at least keep it to a 3 minute maximum - That's not what people are paying to see - if they want that smut, they'll go watch Jennifer Anniston movies.
That's why the first XMen movies were so good - and the only thing that made Spiderman watchable.

X3 was just way too rushed, like it could have been a trilogy, but was cut to 94 minutes. Too bad - the concept wasn't bad, just the execution.

Geoffcin
07-01-2006, 05:39 AM
I thought X3 was disappointing, but still much better than either spiderman movie...Those are way to Hollywood love story and too much forced conflict/emotion...I like them, but they drag on so much...comic super hero movies shouldn't have much character development at all - that's been the problem. Most of their fans and even the casual viewer know the characters enough anyway - especially by the sequels. You can't develop spiderman or superman, or the XMen main characters anymore than 70 years of pop-culture already has, especially in 2 hour film. And it's not surprising so many people criticize writers and producers for trying to reinvent these characters in their movies - you don't rewrite Jesus in biblical films, don't rewrite superheroes either!!!
Time for plot development, and no more teasing love stories. Or at least keep it to a 3 minute maximum - That's not what people are paying to see - if they want that smut, they'll go watch Jennifer Anniston movies.
That's why the first XMen movies were so good - and the only thing that made Spiderman watchable.

X3 was just way too rushed, like it could have been a trilogy, but was cut to 94 minutes. Too bad - the concept wasn't bad, just the execution.

X3 was a bit of a disapointment, especially when compared to X1. I hope you all stayed till the credits were finished. (hint-hint)

RGA
07-01-2006, 07:47 AM
For me Spiderman 2 succeeds with the love story -- without that there is no tension -- the entire film revolves around Peter Parker trying to protect his love from the villainy that awaits if they discover her. It is one of the best handled love stories that I have seen from hollywood and it is a miracle they managed to put it inside of comic book movie. Not top mention the great life outside of being a super-hero where Parker is trying to make a living delivering pizza's while saving the world while going to school while saving money to impress the girl -- he's not Superman you know -- I liked it even better the second time through.

Add to that a villain who is not the carboard cookie cutting megalomaniac we have a scientist who is briliant but gets entagled with his invention - and a pitiable finale to boot.

I didn't care for any of the X-Men movies largely because all there is on display are cookie cutter characters - This X-Man has this power and that X-Man can do that and after a while it's big fat hairy deal -- film is supposed to create a fan of the film not just speak to the people buying comic books. The comic book folks can fill in the gaps the films miss but as a non X-Man Comic book buyer the film's job is to create vibrant interesting people not just furrowed brows and clever special effects. Spiderman has one super hero to create and make me feel somehting for him. The X-Men series attempts to some degree to do this with Wolverine and Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart are strong Shakespearian actors who can carry banal dialog with the best of them which made the first two entries watchable and at times enjoyable. And Storm is just downright lightning strike hot (Thanks Halle for just being you and wearing a skin tight outfit).

I also think you're being unfair to character development in the comics -- I think you'll find Spiderman had a lot of love interest in his comics and Batman is a well drawn character. When handled well there can be high tension and high drama and some humour with it. I prefer Spiderman 2 to Batman Begins (though I greatly liked this film) simply because I prefer the character of Spiderman more -- Batman is ovelry somber and brooding while Spidey is more upbeat and optimistic (and Naive) -- but then I like Spielberg too and the art house folks hate optimism and thus hate Spielberg.

RGA
07-01-2006, 08:02 AM
Also

Saw Superman Returns today -- Gotta say I wish he returned with a script.

I have to say I'm going with Roger Ebert on this one -- he is usually overly generous with comic book films and in a way **/**** is a little too generous.

I found the entire movie to be problematic and it's so hard to find a place to start. First we have the score which I have always liked but here they attempted to overpower it to drive it into your head and quite frankly John Williams' original had a delicacy and intimacy to it when Reeves and Kidder were having their "romance scene." Why pick on the music first because it is representative of the entire film. Whack you over the head rather than let it play. I like Kevin Spacey -- he's one of my favorite actors but here he just doesn't remotely capture Gene Hackman's tenacity or wit - but then he had much less to work with here.

Reeves probably got overshadowed in star power on the release of Superman and probably doesn't get the credit he deserved for the first two films -- he took a cardboard charicature and breathed life, charm, humour, and wink to the camera that made Clark Kent something special -- A Joe average with the alter-ego of a God. Something no doubt that the original writer had dreamed of being. None of this was here with Brandon Routh -- though to be fair -- Reeves could not save Superman III or IV so Routh was the least of my problems with Superman Returns.

Lois Lane -- wow what a poorly written mess of a character. Kate's probably a fine actress but she is replacing Margot Kidder -- it is absolutely assanine casting to have a woman who looks maybe 22 has a 5 year old kid (who seems 8) in a story where Superman has been gone 5 years. Aside from winning the pulitzer prize and aside from the fact that what she was working for the Daily Planet at 12 years old, one wonders what the writers were thinking here. (and the entire Dopey scene where Richard is asking Lois if she was ever in love with Superman.

I'll even cave my head in on all the points given that it's a comic book movie IF the two leads had the slightest bit of chemistry -- but since Lois is engaged to another man -- that kind of plot line kills any hope of this. So they want to play it darker perhaps like Batman -- but it just doesn't work (even darkening Superman's Red Cape - if that's all they can come up with they need some help). His people are all dead -- ohh but let's get to the next special effects sequence because 8 minutes have gone by -- arrrgh.

Then the effects --- ohh sure they're better they oughta be -- but even here they're tired. Like X-Man III. Singer doesn't get it. There is no sense of any real danger here -- it's about the effects sequences rather than what's at stake. With Superman II they had 3 supervillains who could do real damage to the people of metropolous and to Superman. Lex Luther in Superman One -- had the multiple missile scenario that "even Superman with his great speed can't get to both" and he couldn't. These fisrt two films had a foe that truly were threats -- and handled with brilliant charm wit and tongue firmly in cheek -- they were fun romps into the comic book world. Superman Returns/

What do we have now - a humourless special effects extravaganza with almost zero tension, zero chemistry, zero charm that makes Superman III look more appealing to watch a second time. In fact it does and that probably says it all.

The film needed Richard Donner (Or Sam Raimi) -- then it needed a casting call -- pay Gene Hackman the huge money but get him. Then it needed a 35 old Clark Kent and a 35 year old quality actress with a bit of an edge - someone like Jennifer Connoly or Ashley Judd. Women who are sexy enough but not just pretty girls and people who might actually be believable as get their way reporters rather than the mousy weakling Lois we end up with. The Superman Character need not be someone trying to look and act like Christopher Reeves (that only illustrates that you don't have Christopher in the role and that the guy you have you don't have much confidence in). This is like James Bond -- sure he ain't Sean Connery but Moore managed to be successful in a different way and it is a valid choice by the actor.

Superman Returns is Super Banal moviegoing - It's bird, no it's a thumb, no it's a thumb WAY WAY down! (Yeah i copied -- but this film isn't worth original criticism)

*1/2 / *****

Kam
07-05-2006, 07:08 AM
just to give the contrary viewpoint, i enjoyed it. sure its not the greatest of the superhero movies, but i think it stands up well on its own.
every other superhero is one, we, in some way, can relate to. inspite of their powers, the xmen are simply outcasts. spiderman with all his incredible gifts had let down a loved one and is forever carrying that guilt. batman had his loved ones stolen away before his very eyes and his vengeance fuels him. But superman.... sure, he's the orphan son who never really knew his parents, but its more than that. The superman mythology basically follows christian storylines. the father from a distant planet sends his only son off to earth where he hopes his son will be their savior. that son is filled with such a pure goodness it really goes beyond human to be something humans should strive for. he even sacrifices himself to save this planet over and over again.

and so with this movie, its told from a different perspective from every other superhero movie. batman, spiderman, and the xmen, are told from the main characters point of view. we know it is their story being told from their emotional stand point. but that's not the case here, because we dont know superman, he's an alien impersonating us with basically godlike powers. and the story of this movie is not told from his point of view. it is more of an omniscient, all seeing storytellers point of view, rather than directly from superman's emotional standpoint. the point shifts from luthor to lois lane to superman (a.... 'trinity' if you will) without keeping one viewpoint as it moves to the next.
i read and heard several people talk about there being homosexual overtones to the movie and i have no idea what movie they were watching. yes, there is very heavy christian iconography in the movie, but where they thought there was homosexuality, i have no clue.

the main critique i had was there was one entire action sequence (the bank robbery) could have been cut out entirely as it had nothing to do with anything other than to be an action sequence. i've heard (just rumors) that the studio didnt think the movie had enough action in it and so wanted that scene put in, which would make sense: it's flashy, has the cool cgi, makes for an excellent trailer clip, and has nothing to do with anything important. sounds like a studio decision to me.

and the odd thing isnt the ages of the people, as christopher reeves was the same age in superman as brandon routh is now, its just that reeves looked FAR more mature and brought his own gravitasse to the role as superman. i personally like routh as superman (i liked reeves more) but routh brought more of that prodigal, alien son feel to it than reeves did, which, for this movie, was the right look. reeves' clark kent was far more human than routh's, which again was more appropriate for donner's movie.
and my problem with lois wasnt her age either, but that a pulitzer prize winning journalist thinks there's an "F" in catastrophe. sure, you can have a nice dichotomy of a character who's a brilliant writer but a total scatterbrain, but that isn't what this is about!! why throw in a stupid moment like that with no other substance behind it other than a 'look how cutesy lois lane is awwwwww' moment with no foundation to it? that was irritating. Yes, i know it was a throwback to the comic and the original (the two "p"s in rapist line) but it didnt work here, margot kidder player lois like she was a scatterbrained journalist who still had her stuff together when needed, here lois is an 'empowered' woman with a pulitzer, so the "F" in catastrophe line came off as stupid. although i did like the superman 'you really shouldnt smoke' line throw back and the opening credits homage to the original as well.
overall, the first superman is the best of the bunch, but this one is still a good, fun, entertaining movie.

although as a caveat, i did see it on the imax 3d screen, which prolly helped me think it was good too. visually pretty phenomenal. it got to be a bit much in one scene (they had 4 scenes in 3D), but the other 3 scenes were pretty stunning.

overall, i liked it. :)

Defshep
07-06-2006, 07:54 AM
I saw it again with the family in a packed theater on Sunday afternoon. I gotta say, I enjoyed it a little more this time. The audience was cheering and laughing at all the right moments. I still got chills during the opening score and credits sequence. I still didn't like the choice for Lois Lane or Perry White ( I heard Hugh Laurie was up for the part, that might've worked), and the movie is a little too long. It's still not the best superhero movie, but I'm not sure Superman Returns could have been made with more loving care and respect than it was.

ericl
07-06-2006, 09:06 AM
It was fun, but I tend to agree with Kex about him playing Reeve playing Superman. I kept thinking: He's no Christopher Reeve, He's no Gene Hackman (Spacey was good, but I think hackman defined the role like Nicholson's Joker) and she's no Margot Kidder. This actress was way too young. It made me realize how good the previous cast all were in their roles. They ALL defined them i think. I even liked the old Jimmy better. Maybe it's because I grew up with those films and loved them so much. Glad they kept Brando, his voice is so haunting and perfect.. or was that an impersonator??

I did like the twist with the kid..

Defshep
07-06-2006, 02:52 PM
Glad they kept Brando, his voice is so haunting and perfect.. or was that an impersonator??

Yep, that was the real, although Memorexed, Brando. I loved that added touch. I read they were considering Anthony Hopkins as Jor-El early on. He would've been fine, but glad they went the other way.
Kind of a funny continuity thing. My stepson asked, "If this is five years after S2, how come they got computers in the newsroom? Isn't this the 80's?" Didn't really bother me, though. I was just thrilled they "magically" forgot about S3 and S4!

Woochifer
07-13-2006, 11:47 AM
I'm down in Southern California and saw it last night at the Mann Village in Westwood. 1,400 seat theater with digital projection onto one of the best screens and one of the best sound systems anywhere, and there were maybe 50 people in the house! Doesn't bode well for Superman Returns having the legs needed to give Warner a good return on the reported ~$260 million production cost.

My overall impression is similar to Kex's -- good enough to provide a couple of hours of entertainment, but not great. It seems that all the good things I can say about the movie need to also include qualifiers. I like the many references that the movie made to the original Superman: The Movie, but in a way that reverence to Richard Donner's movie hindered a lot of what Bryan Singer could do with the new movie. Yet, one of the subplots that departed the most from the original Superman movie series, that of Lois Lane's child, was a dud IMO.

The movie had some great action sequences, just not enough of them. Kevin Spacey was great as Lex Luthor, but I did not find Luthor's evil plot all that convincing. Brandon Routh did a decent job, but at times it seemed like he was trying too hard to emulate Christopher Reeve's portrayal. I liked that they chose to include at least three of the John Williams themes in the score, but that created a somewhat jarring contrast with the newer music, which played more towards the messiah theme that Singer was obviously trying to convey. And the list goes on.

In all it was a mixed bag. Some great and promising elements followed by others that fell flat.

I hate to say it, but the Spidey 3 trailer piqued my interest more than most of Superman Returns did. They're going forward with the alien costume story, which IMO is one of the best ones from the comics. I'm really glad that Raimi is going there.

L.J.
07-13-2006, 12:54 PM
Taking my dad to see it this weekend. I'm pretty excited about it. Mainly cause I'm seeing it on IMAX. My dad saw it once already and he enjoyed it the first time so I'm hoping it's worth the drive.

GMichael
07-13-2006, 01:14 PM
I saw this last Sunday. I bought season 3 of Louis & Clark and it came with one free ticket.

The movie was fun. The sound seemed good. Not a classic IMO but enjoyable. The action in the begining was better than the action the rest of the way. The IMAX should give it an extra twist. Let us know how you like it LJ.

Woochifer
07-13-2006, 04:20 PM
Taking my dad to see it this weekend. I'm pretty excited about it. Mainly cause I'm seeing it on IMAX. My dad saw it once already and he enjoyed it the first time so I'm hoping it's worth the drive.

Some friends of mine in the Bay Area had talked about seeing it as well, so I might see it again at the Dublin IMAX (which is where I presume you'll be watching it). The IMAX screenings have scenes in 3D, so that might be make for an interesting viewing (some of the action scenes indeed are spectacular enough in 2D).

L.J.
07-15-2006, 06:31 PM
Went to see it today. I forgot how big that dang IMAX screen is (Yeah Wooch, I went to the theater in Dublin). I really enjoyed myself. I thought the movie was good and the sound was great. There were no empty seats to be found. One thing I noticed was during tense scenes in the movie, there was dead silence. Not even the sip of a soda, or ruffle from a bag could be heard. I was not thrilled about the ending but I'm not complaining either. I will surely be picking up the DVD. The 3D scenes were enjoyable as well. My dad said he enjoyed it even more his second time around. I may start taking that 45 min drive to the IMAX more often.

GMichael
07-16-2006, 07:15 AM
Went to see it today. I forgot how big that dang IMAX screen is (Yeah Wooch, I went to the theater in Dublin). I really enjoyed myself. I thought the movie was good and the sound was great. There were no empty seats to be found. One thing I noticed was during tense scenes in the movie, there was dead silence. Not even the sip of a soda, or ruffle from a bag could be heard. I was not thrilled about the ending but I'm not complaining either. I will surely be picking up the DVD. The 3D scenes were enjoyable as well. My dad said he enjoyed it even more his second time around. I may start taking that 45 min drive to the IMAX more often.

Hmmmm.... There's an IMAX about 45 minutes from here too. Now you have me wanting to try it out again. I was there once a few years ago but didn't like the movie. Maybe now that there is more to see at IMAX it's worth another try.

Woochifer
07-17-2006, 12:19 PM
Went to see it today. I forgot how big that dang IMAX screen is (Yeah Wooch, I went to the theater in Dublin). I really enjoyed myself. I thought the movie was good and the sound was great. There were no empty seats to be found. One thing I noticed was during tense scenes in the movie, there was dead silence. Not even the sip of a soda, or ruffle from a bag could be heard. I was not thrilled about the ending but I'm not complaining either. I will surely be picking up the DVD. The 3D scenes were enjoyable as well. My dad said he enjoyed it even more his second time around. I may start taking that 45 min drive to the IMAX more often.

Did the IMAX version present the movie in a letterboxed widescreen format, or does it fill the full height of the IMAX screen? I remember watching the IMAX version of Attack of the Clones and it got truncated into a more squarish aspect ratio in order to fill the full IMAX screen. It looked and sounded great, but it was like watching a giant pan & scan video with a lot of the action missing. Other IMAX releases like Batman Begins got it right by letterboxing the image into the original aspect ratio. But, last year the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory IMAX release apparently went to the truncated "full screen" aspect ratio.

Hoping that Superman Returns did the IMAX release the right way. I do plan to see it again, since I've heard great things about the 3D scenes and I'm curious as to how the IMAX presentation compares to the 4k DLP digital projection that I saw down in LA. (In general, I'm not sold on digital projection)

Otherwise, glad to hear that you had a good time. I think a 45-minute drive is well worth the time to get a big step up in presentation quality. Aside from the larger film print format, IMAX also uses uncompressed 24-bit audio and point source surround speaker clusters rather than the more typical speaker arrays that snake down the side and back walls (uniform auditorium dimensions and acoustics allow for this). With single-screen showcase theaters disappearing fast (the Coronet Theater in San Francisco, which was the preferred location in the city for big budget blockbusters, is the latest casualty), IMAX is one of the few things left that can make movie-going an event again, rather than some generic diversion.

As an aside, I much prefer the flat screen at the Dublin IMAX over the dome screen that they use at the San Jose Tech Museum's IMAX theater.

markw
07-17-2006, 12:28 PM
Saw it in Nashville two weeks and again yesterday in NY with some out of town visitors that wanted to see it. Both were full screen and, but the theatre in NYC claims to be the "biggest screen in the world".

Still not too impressed with the movie, but the guy does do a bang up Chris Reeve impersonation.

As for Superman himself, well, the ending didn't offer too much hope we'll be seeing him again but they did leave the door open a crack. It looks me like they are trying to set the stage for a "next generation" Superman, or boy, take your pick.

Slightly different 3D coming attractions, though. Same movie, but some things were missing here in NY

Kam
07-17-2006, 12:31 PM
Saw it in Nashville two weeks and again yesterday in NY with some out of town visitors that wanted to see it. Still not too impressed, but the guy does do a bang up Chris Reeeve impersanation.

It looks to me like they are trying to set the stage for a "next generation" Superman, or boy, take your pick.

Slightly different 3D coming attractions, though. Same movie, but some things were missing here in NY

which imax in ny did you go to? i saw it at the Lincoln Center one and it was letterboxed. so far Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was the only fullscreen movie i've seen at that imax screen. the others (batman begins, spidey, polar express, and supes) were all letterboxed.

markw
07-17-2006, 01:00 PM
which imax in ny did you go to? i saw it at the Lincoln Center one and it was letterboxed. so far Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was the only fullscreen movie i've seen at that imax screen. the others (batman begins, spidey, polar express, and supes) were all letterboxed.I don't think it was letterboxed but, then again. maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.

Kam
07-17-2006, 01:30 PM
I don't think it was letterboxed but, then again. maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.

i could be wrong too, haha i was pretty hopped up on sugar and chocolate while waiting in line to go in, but i thought it was letterboxed. now i'm thinking maybe it was full frame...? mind playing tricks on me. might have to just go check it out again!

markw
07-17-2006, 02:03 PM
i could be wrong too, haha i was pretty hopped up on sugar and chocolate while waiting in line to go in, but i thought it was letterboxed. now i'm thinking maybe it was full frame...? mind playing tricks on me. might have to just go check it out again!We should meet atthe B & N at 66th before the movie and check it out together.

Seriously, when another "IMAX worthy" movie comes out. PM me aqd we should bring the spouses and check out the movie together. I shoot to be ther an hour before the doors open so I can get choice seating (top row, dead center) . ...didn't work yesterday though. ...scheduling.

Kam
07-17-2006, 03:15 PM
We should meet atthe B & N at 66th before the movie and check it out together.

Seriously, when another "IMAX worthy" movie comes out. PM me aqd we should bring the spouses and check out the movie together. I shoot to be ther an hour before the doors open so I can get choice seating (top row, dead center) . ...didn't work yesterday though. ...scheduling.

sounds like a plan! i can get passes from my work and pick up the tix for all beforehand too (passes are $7 so pretty much seeing the movie for halfprice).

the next three releases on imax, ALL in 3d are
The Any Bully
Open Season
Happy Feet
i'm not really that jazzed to see any of these, might wait till i hear if any of them are worthy, although just for the 3D visuals, i'm sure any would be pretty impressive.
and yes, i get there quite early as well to get that top row dead center spot too!

L.J.
07-17-2006, 03:33 PM
Did the IMAX version present the movie in a letterboxed widescreen format, or does it fill the full height of the IMAX screen? I remember watching the IMAX version of Attack of the Clones and it got truncated into a more squarish aspect ratio in order to fill the full IMAX screen. It looked and sounded great, but it was like watching a giant pan & scan video with a lot of the action missing. Other IMAX releases like Batman Begins got it right by letterboxing the image into the original aspect ratio. But, last year the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory IMAX release apparently went to the truncated "full screen" aspect ratio.

Hoping that Superman Returns did the IMAX release the right way. I do plan to see it again, since I've heard great things about the 3D scenes and I'm curious as to how the IMAX presentation compares to the 4k DLP digital projection that I saw down in LA. (In general, I'm not sold on digital projection)

Otherwise, glad to hear that you had a good time. I think a 45-minute drive is well worth the time to get a big step up in presentation quality. Aside from the larger film print format, IMAX also uses uncompressed 24-bit audio and point source surround speaker clusters rather than the more typical speaker arrays that snake down the side and back walls (uniform auditorium dimensions and acoustics allow for this). With single-screen showcase theaters disappearing fast (the Coronet Theater in San Francisco, which was the preferred location in the city for big budget blockbusters, is the latest casualty), IMAX is one of the few things left that can make movie-going an event again, rather than some generic diversion.

As an aside, I much prefer the flat screen at the Dublin IMAX over the dome screen that they use at the San Jose Tech Museum's IMAX theater.

It was widescreen. I was curious about that since the screen was so tall and square. Would have been strange if that whole screen were filled.

Yes, there was a huge diff in sound. This was my first IMAX movie in years so I really didn't know what to expect. I was really impressed and will be going that route more often. I thought it was well worth the money

Woochifer
07-17-2006, 05:57 PM
It was widescreen. I was curious about that since the screen was so tall and square. Would have been strange if that whole screen were filled.

Yes, there was a huge diff in sound. This was my first IMAX movie in years so I really didn't know what to expect. I was really impressed and will be going that route more often. I thought it was well worth the money

Thanks for the info! Believe me, it was strange watching the IMAX Attack of the Clones in "full screen." It felt like a pan & scan video with my face only a few inches from the TV screen. I avoided the IMAX Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when I read that it was done without the widescreen letterboxing. The only excuse for doing it that way would be if the original film was shot in Super 35 (where the filmed image actually covers a larger area than the widescreen image area, which gets matted later on) and the "full screen" IMAX print would actually unveil more of the image than the widescreen presentation does. I know that the original 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was done this way, and the "full screen" DVD actually shows more on screen than the widescreen version. But, from what I read, the IMAX version of Charlie did truncate the image.

It's a good bet that more movies will get the IMAX treatment. Superman Returns has been dropping off fast at the box office, but the numbers from the IMAX screenings have been holding up much better.

superpanavision70mm
07-23-2006, 07:12 PM
TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the ...."other stuff"

Upon hearing this newer version of the Superman motto...I knew that I was in for a real lame interpretation of Superman. Boy was I wrong....not only was it lame, but it was beyond lame. I would have rather watched Superman III than this new Superman. No longer does he stand for "The American Way", but he also can't live up to the image.

I decided to write my own article called "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman Returns". Anyone else with me on this one?

2 1/2 hours of non-excitement...yipppee. Poor casting, poor script, poor lighting, poor editing, poor directing (even from Singer who once made good films like Public Access and The Usual Suspects).

Dusty Chalk
12-04-2006, 01:46 PM
Saw this this weekend -- kind of hated it. Expected so much more from Singer, but it was "just another Superman franchise movie", and it was way too long and drawn out.

Worf101
12-12-2006, 04:27 AM
Me and the whole famn damily sat down to watch this film together. Couldn't say "the American Way" anymore and I can see why. Really didn't like this movie. Didn't do much for me. Funny how he can fly around the world and stop kittens from falling out of trees and criminals from robbing banks, no mention of terrorists with car bombs in Iraq. Stop them folks from killing each other by the thousands and that would've impressed me.

Too long, too, boring, too "Messianic". Jorel gave his only begotten son to watch over us. Stabbed in the side like Christ and left for dead but reborn to save us all.. What a load of cobblers. Had more fun watching "The Incredibles".

Da Worfster

topspeed
12-12-2006, 09:11 AM
Bought this from Costco on a lark a few weeks ago and can't believe I now have this in my collection. Good Lord this movie was boring. My kids liked it, but that is its only redeeming quality. Personally, I would have rather watched the grass grow.

GMichael
12-12-2006, 09:20 AM
Personally, I would have rather watched the grass grow.

Saw this movie. It's slower than watching paint dry.