Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams

   
Author Topic: Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 08-07-2002 03:36 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is the first bad movie that Robert Rodriguez has made. It was not nearly as fun or humorous as the first film. It didn't acknowledge its silliness, and this made it stupid. The action sequences were also not done nearly as well. Antonio Banderas, Carla Gugino, Steve Buscemi, Bill Paxton, Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo, Alan Cumming, Tony Shalhoub and Ricardo Montalban were all wasted. How do you do that? This is the biggest disappointment in a very long time.

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3671
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 08-07-2002 05:04 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't see the first one and realized right away this one originated on video. I was hoping that's why I thought it was horrible. Guess not. It will take months for me to recover from this one.

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Fraser
Master Film Handler

Posts: 498
From: Houghton Lake, MI, USA
Registered: Dec 2001


 - posted 08-07-2002 11:00 PM      Profile for Adam Fraser   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Fraser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The lack of sharpness gave me a headache and could not watch more than 5 minutes at a time. So kinda hard to do a complete review.

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

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


 - posted 08-08-2002 10:18 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lets hope that only bad movies get made on video.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10731
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 08-08-2002 05:54 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just wish such things would go straight-to-video. After all, they're being shot that way.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 08-08-2002 08:18 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not endorsing the use of digital photography in any way, but I highly doubt that the look of this film would bother most people. I also doubt that most people, ourselves included, would be able to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was shot digitally if we weren't looking for it. I'm sure you'll all say that I'm wrong, but I've talked to co-workers who can tell whether something was shot in anamorphic or Super 35 just by looking at the quality of the image. These guys watched the trailer for this movie and were shocked when, immediately afterwards, they were told it was shot digitally. These are guys who have worked in the booth for a couple years, and watch 2 or 3 movies a week on film. If it doesn't bother them, I don't think it'll bother most people. And there certainly are benefits to shooting a movie like this digitally.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1381
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 08-08-2002 10:03 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw the previews as well, an wouldn't have known that it was shot digitally until I read it later. I think some people may have pre-conceived notions that something is bad before they see something, and are looking for, unconsciously or not, anything to validate their opinions about a technology. What we really need are some blind tests.

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

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


 - posted 08-09-2002 12:58 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mike Schindler said "And there certainly are benefits to shooting a movie like this digitally."

Yeah, so pieces like this one don't waste quality film that is needed for real movies.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 08-09-2002 03:27 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To be quite honest I have never seen the trailer for this in the theaters, but tonight for the first time I saw an ad for it on TV. My VERY first thought was "This looks like video... BAD video!" I had no idea it was shot on video, but I guessed that it was after seeing the TV commercial. All I knew was that the first one was exhibited in DLP. Seeing the posts here confirms that it was shot on video.

Telling if a movie was shot anamorphically or with Super 35 is quite easy, especially if there are any lens flares. So that is not really a talent to brag about.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 08-09-2002 03:59 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know that it's easy to tell the difference between anamorphic and Super 35, especially if there are lens flares. But by quality of the image, I meant how grainy it looked. Also, I wasn't trying to say that this was something to brag about. It's just that it's not something which the average moviegoer can do. It's not something which bothers the average moviegoer, either. It does bother these guys, and they weren't tremendously bothered by the SPY KIDS 2 trailer. Personally, I was shocked by how good it actually looked. The biggest problem that I had with the look of SPY KIDS 2 was how poorly the effects were integrated with the rest of the film. Every effect stood out because of two reasons. For one thing, they were not very photo-realistic. Secondly, they did not match the live-action footage. I wonder if this has something to do with why people think it looks so bad.

Another problem which I had with the look of the film was that it was just poorly shot. But that's what happens when you don't use a DP. It would have looked just as bad on film.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1381
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 08-09-2002 09:36 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:
I just wish such things would go straight-to-video. After all, they're being shot that way.

But that's what's so great about current distrubution patterns. You can elect for yourself whether to see it at the theatre or see itwhen the video comes out. Most people, especially the families that this film is clearly aimed at, cannot tell the difference anyway. They'll just get into the story.


 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1381
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 08-14-2002 12:48 AM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I saw SPY KIDS 2 tonight, and it wasn't as bad as I had expected. It was mostly eye candy, but colorful. I honestly found the image quality to be excellent. The 35mm print I saw had far less grain than I normally see in the average release print, and I honestly couldn't tell that it had originated on digital video. I think perhaps a few are straining their eyes to find any fault with the image capturing system used. The audience enjoyed themselves regardless. I've certainly seen a lot worse 35mm images lately.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.