Fruitster
Member
I'll never tire of seeing this.
It'll probably get taken down soon, but here's the clip from Jay Leno.
http://youtu.be/UDZIerTwJoo?t=3m17s
Eh, Cavill's delivery here is atrocious. Something about the CG just seems... off, as well.
It'll probably get taken down soon, but here's the clip from Jay Leno.
http://youtu.be/UDZIerTwJoo?t=3m17s
Eh, Cavill's delivery here is atrocious. Something about the CG just seems... off, as well.
He says it's a 6 out of 10 and is The Amazing Spider-Man of the DC movie universe.
Don't really agree with any of the impressions but to each their own.
Eh, Cavill's delivery here is atrocious. Something about the CG just seems... off, as well.
Physics went out the window. Same as avengersEh, Cavill's delivery here is atrocious. Something about the CG just seems... off, as well.
no plot spoilers just answering his question!Speaking of which, how much screen time does Faora get in this (spoiler it if need be)... inquiring minds want to know!
Some of the impressions are deflating my hype :/
That's a good thing. The problem w/ hype is that it transforms anticipation into expectation. And that's when people start feeling burnt over movies, and disappointment becomes anger.
At the end of the day, even if it's great - its still just a movie.
To me it was better or on par with Hobbits 3D. I also say Rises at a true Imax theater with the 50 ft screen or whatever it was and this was just as good... I really enjoyed the 3D. Hobbit, Pi, DKR and this had really good 3D. Id say it was definitely better than star trek's 3D.seriously though, I'm having a hard time believing the 3D on this thing is gonna be worth it. post-conversion is almost always sub-par, and snyder shot this thing handheld with mostly one camera. Making that kind of footage stereoscopic? That's a rough task.
Unless it's shot natively in 3D, its almost never worth it. I wish they'd spent the 10-20 mil (if that) on something else. But I know that 3D tax is too good to pass up.
It was shot on 35mm. I'm gonna only seek it out in 2D, myself.
Some of the impressions are deflating my hype :/
To me it was better or on par with Hobbits 3D. I also say Rises at a true Imax theater with the 50 ft screen or whatever it was and this was just as good... I really enjoyed the 3D. Hobbit, Pi, DKR and this had really good 3D. Id say it was definitely better than star trek's 3D
To me it was better or on par with Hobbits 3D. I also say Rises at a true Imax theater with the 50 ft screen or whatever it was and this was just as good... I really enjoyed the 3D. Hobbit, Pi, DKR and this had really good 3D. Id say it was definitely better than star trek's 3D.
Yeah, I didn't see star Trek in 3D, but I wasn't all that impressed w/ Hobbit's, which WAS shot natively.
To me it was better or on par with Hobbits 3D. I also say Rises at a true Imax theater with the 50 ft screen or whatever it was and this was just as good... I really enjoyed the 3D. Hobbit, Pi, DKR and this had really good 3D. Id say it was definitely better than star trek's 3D.
Better to be disappointed before hand and then be surprised than the other way around I'd say.
Is there an end-credit scene like the Marvel movies?
That would've been godlike.Nothing after it when I saw it. A bunch of people were annoyed by that. Some guy wanted Alfred to show up...for some reason.
Nothing after it when I saw it. A bunch of people were annoyed by that. Some guy wanted Alfred to show up...for some reason.
Sounds like this movie suffers from the same problem as The Dark Knight Rises...bloat.
Sounds like this movie suffers from the same problem as The Dark Knight Rises...too much bloat for a 2 hour movie. Nolan should write mini series.
DKR had 3D?
Man, the track in that Nokia trailer is amazing.
Yeah, I didn't see star Trek in 3D, but I wasn't all that impressed w/ Hobbit's, which WAS shot natively.
Basically, movies like coraline & Hugo & How to Train Your Dragon (and Avatar of course) should be the baseline for 3D, not the top tier. Unfortunately, it isn't, and the baseline is 10-20 million dollar post-conversions that sorta just wear off after 10 minutes anyway.
I hope it's in the soundtrack. Unlike Rises'.
Nothing after it when I saw it. A bunch of people were annoyed by that. Some guy wanted Alfred to show up...for some reason.
It's not, it's 2h23mDidn't realize the movie was 2h38m. Wow
Sweet!It's a track from the OST.
Movie's not out and it's already happening.
Zack Snyder directed the thing. Not Christopher Nolan.
Eh, Cavill's delivery here is atrocious. Something about the CG just seems... off, as well.
Movie's not out and it's already happening.
Zack Snyder directed the thing. Not Christopher Nolan.
And look guys, if you want to turn your brain off and enjoy a summer blockbuster with AMAZING VISUALS and devastating destruction then this is easily a 9 - 9.5. If you go in thinking its more than that then be prepared to be disappointed. It worth seeing just for the visuals, trust me guys. Your hype is pretty accurate for that aspect of the film. It's great. Which is why I want to see it again.
thanks! I would've been annoyed to have waited the extra 10-15min for all the credits for nothing.
I agree with Fox 100% in most of what he's said before. If you want action this has it in spades. If you go back over the whole movie and try to critique it you'll find plenty of pot holes. It's not a perfect movie, it's a good launching pad.
Superman here is actually narrating to the audience what is happening to Zod as he takes off his mask.