Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Rurouni
Veteran
I just watch Mad Max yesterday. It was bellow my expectation. You see, at Rotten Tomatoes it got 98% and most of the people in this thread highly praise this movie, so my expectation went sky high.
When watching it, I was kinda bored. Probably because looking at nearly the same thing for 2 hours. Also I don't like the white bald dudes. Anyway, I was less entertained by this VS Avengers 2 (which is also less entertaining than Furious 7).
It wasn't a bad movie, but for me it is at best a 7 out of 10 movie.
When watching it, I was kinda bored. Probably because looking at nearly the same thing for 2 hours. Also I don't like the white bald dudes. Anyway, I was less entertained by this VS Avengers 2 (which is also less entertaining than Furious 7).
It wasn't a bad movie, but for me it is at best a 7 out of 10 movie.
Well I went to see Pitch Perfect 2 - and keep in mind that the first one was absolutely genius and one of my favourite films of the last few years - and...
What a waste of two hours I'll never get back. Shocking.
What a waste of two hours I'll never get back. Shocking.
Yes, and I just love Emma Stone regardless of what she does.
As for Pitch Perfect 2, I don't know how they expected to carry a whole movie - a long one at that too! - on a couple of funny moments we saw in the trailers anyway and a couple of good performances. In between it felt like a collection of completely disconnected scenes. They really had no idea what to do with it.
Yeah I saw all the positive reviews and I just can't figure out if it's me or them...
The second isn't a patch on the first. IMHO. Went on for too long, a less than sensible plot (even in comparison to the first one!) and, just a few months after I saw it, I can't really remember much about the film!
I've just read this from a fellow CG guy and I have to post it here because it's just so right:
Again nice to see lots of invisible and unfortunately unsung VFX being used PROPERLY to support all the intense and amazing practical work. Instead of this movie turning into an anti-CGI rally it should be used to champion the best of all worlds and using available tools to their fullest.
Again nice to see lots of invisible and unfortunately unsung VFX being used PROPERLY to support all the intense and amazing practical work. Instead of this movie turning into an anti-CGI rally it should be used to champion the best of all worlds and using available tools to their fullest.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Isn't that pretty much what's happening, though? When people bitch and moan about CGI they're usually talking about the wall-to-wall, weightless and generally fake looking stuff. Unfortunately a not-so-well versed individual will have a hard time celebrating what he you can't really perceive in the first place.
Unfortunate downside of a trade which, at its best, is entirely invisble.
Last edited:
This is a two sided coin IMHO...
The one major thing that CGI has enabled is a much more seamless kind of visuals. It can remove wires (even very thick ones, check out MMFR's B-roll footage), reflections of the camera crew, unwanted elements in the scenery, or even skin blemishes from the faces of young actors and actresses. It can also add subtle elements that would've been unsafe or impractical to be present at the shoot. Most of the digital double work or simple face replacement on stunt people are also usually invisible, unless it's pushing it too far.
The other aspect is the more debated - creating things that would be impossible or way to problematic to do practically. All kinds of creatures and special effects (fire, destruction etc) are usually the most obvious and thus the most hated. But still, there are many examples where they were done right - District 9, Planet of the Apes, or the tiger in Life of Pi are good examples where they're both necessary for the story and also very well done. However, while I'd say that a lot of the robot CG in Transformers is nearly flawless*, the way they're used is not always good.
Set extensions and matte paintings are also a somewhat mixed bag - a lot of this stuff goes completely unnoticed, but when the entire environment is just green screens then it usually stops to work.
So in the end it usually comes down to the director: restraint and good storytelling can go very far in selling CG creatures and sets.
I'd also like to mention another interesting issue - there's a lot of stuff in Mad Max that probably could have been done with CG instead of stunts, and it would have cost a lot less to do it that way. And there's a good chance that noone would've noticed it.
I mean I know for certain that there's a digital double for Max, and probably for a lot of stuntmen, and they're used many times in the action scenes; but because we all know that a LOT has been shot in live action, we never really wonder if there's any CG in those scenes. On my first viewing I haven't really been able to tell (beyond the obvious, like the storm scene) where the CG stunt guys are in the movie, even though I'm quite convinced that they are used here and there.
Or another example: the DP has said that about 45% of the movie uses green screen, almost every scene where you see someone in a moving vehicle in medium to close shots has been shot on a stationary rig (called simtrav - simulated travel) but once again you can't really tell. Especially because there are a lot of scenes where people are crawling around or hanging from actually moving vehicles instead. The results are just completely seamless.
Nevertheless, all the live action stunt work is a colossal triumph, especially considering how safe they've managed to make the entire shoot. This is one aspect - beyond the direction and storytelling - that I really really hope to see in future big budget movies.
* There are scenes, even in TF1, where the robots transform to cars and even I can't find the point where the CG transitions into live action elements...
The one major thing that CGI has enabled is a much more seamless kind of visuals. It can remove wires (even very thick ones, check out MMFR's B-roll footage), reflections of the camera crew, unwanted elements in the scenery, or even skin blemishes from the faces of young actors and actresses. It can also add subtle elements that would've been unsafe or impractical to be present at the shoot. Most of the digital double work or simple face replacement on stunt people are also usually invisible, unless it's pushing it too far.
The other aspect is the more debated - creating things that would be impossible or way to problematic to do practically. All kinds of creatures and special effects (fire, destruction etc) are usually the most obvious and thus the most hated. But still, there are many examples where they were done right - District 9, Planet of the Apes, or the tiger in Life of Pi are good examples where they're both necessary for the story and also very well done. However, while I'd say that a lot of the robot CG in Transformers is nearly flawless*, the way they're used is not always good.
Set extensions and matte paintings are also a somewhat mixed bag - a lot of this stuff goes completely unnoticed, but when the entire environment is just green screens then it usually stops to work.
So in the end it usually comes down to the director: restraint and good storytelling can go very far in selling CG creatures and sets.
I'd also like to mention another interesting issue - there's a lot of stuff in Mad Max that probably could have been done with CG instead of stunts, and it would have cost a lot less to do it that way. And there's a good chance that noone would've noticed it.
I mean I know for certain that there's a digital double for Max, and probably for a lot of stuntmen, and they're used many times in the action scenes; but because we all know that a LOT has been shot in live action, we never really wonder if there's any CG in those scenes. On my first viewing I haven't really been able to tell (beyond the obvious, like the storm scene) where the CG stunt guys are in the movie, even though I'm quite convinced that they are used here and there.
Or another example: the DP has said that about 45% of the movie uses green screen, almost every scene where you see someone in a moving vehicle in medium to close shots has been shot on a stationary rig (called simtrav - simulated travel) but once again you can't really tell. Especially because there are a lot of scenes where people are crawling around or hanging from actually moving vehicles instead. The results are just completely seamless.
Nevertheless, all the live action stunt work is a colossal triumph, especially considering how safe they've managed to make the entire shoot. This is one aspect - beyond the direction and storytelling - that I really really hope to see in future big budget movies.
* There are scenes, even in TF1, where the robots transform to cars and even I can't find the point where the CG transitions into live action elements...
Everything really points to me getting off my ass and go see this movie!
Rurouni
Veteran
Just watched Tommorowland yesterday. Like it more than MadMax even if it only got half the rating vs MM. On local radio station, the hosts (there are 2 of them) said that they were fall asleep when watching MM.
Anyway, Tommorowland is a fun movie. Probably got very little practical effects vs MM, but hey, I'm not complaining
Anyway, Tommorowland is a fun movie. Probably got very little practical effects vs MM, but hey, I'm not complaining
Similar threads
