I'm new here so my opinion won't mean anything ;)
BUT, saw it last night in 2D (don't get 3D either). Overall , entertaining movie. It had moments of cheer inducing triumph as well as a ton of great humor. That being said, I had an overall feeling throughout the film that it felt lit, directed and written closer to a 90's TV show more than a modern film. The lensing seemed extremely middle-of-the-road for me. Same with the lighting. As much as I love the look of the Alexa as far as digital cameras are concerned, I have to agree that any film bits OR any all 3D scenes seemed more true to me. There were moments where there is action happening through the skies of Manhattan which is presumably all or mostly 3D and very possibly animated by ILM/Weta/whomever with guidance from the director. Those seemed very blockbuster to me, but then would cut back to a mostly directed/Alexa shot scene and it suddenly felt "TV show" again *for me*. Like the entire opening of the film seemed no different than something on sci-fi channel in terms of look and tone. Scenes where the lighting had more contrast and favored backlighting looked fantastic. Or even scenes in daylight, looked a lot more "filmy" and didn't make me think about the medium. However there were a handful of scenes , most notably when Scarlett goes to find Mark Ruffalo at night where I winced a bit from the "digitalness" of it. Maybe it could have just been DI'd a little more crunchy to help? Not sure.
So as much as I will admit that I still prefer film for blockbuster movies, when I felt the scenes were lit with nice contrast, Alexa did a fantastic job. But I still think that digital cameras need a little bit different approach to light than film does, and I think that could have helped the look of the film. IMO.
Also the entire long middle chunk of the film at the mobile base I thought was a bit pointless and long, like my post is now ;)
