?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Saw Van Helsing

David says I'm just not appreciating a summer action movie. No, I tell him. I can appreciate a light summer action movie; it's the disjointed script and crappy CGI that I'm not appreciating. Maybe Gollum has just ruined me in the suspension-of-disbelief department.

I did appreciate some of the actors trying to do the best with the dreck they had to work with, but there was no saving it, in my humble opinion. Oh, it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, not by far, it was just quite mediocre. Not even up to popcorn movie standards.

Other coming blockbusters:

Troy
Chronicles of Riddick
(mumpish, I'm assuming we can talk you and T. into getting together to see this one?)
Shrek 2
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Spider-Man 2
I, Robot
Hero
(can't wait for this one; friend who's already seen it says "Forget Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.")

Oh, streamweaver? They're making "A Sound of Thunder" into a movie, scheduled for release in October.

The good news? While we were out picking up Mother's Day cards, David bought me the two NWN expansions! Yippee! Of course, the little surprise Mystery Men DVD that I picked up for him arrived in the mail today, so we've just sort of been giving each other little no-occasion-but-that-I-love-you presents this week.

Tags:

Comments

twr
May. 9th, 2004 02:40 pm (UTC)
On CGI . . .
Now I haven't seen Van Helsing, and I haven't read most of your post (I'm one of those people who compuslivly tries to avoid even the slightest spoiler when I think I *may* see a movie), but I have to chime in on the state of CGI in the movimaking industry.

CGI is a very powerful tool and can be used exceedingly well--you mentioned Gollum, but I'd also like to point out the quality of the CGI in 1993's Jurrassic Park. Large scale CGI, giant dinos as well as HERDS of smaller dinos running across the landscape, and it looked GOOD. Not just good for the time, either . . . looking back at it now, it looks better than most CGI looks 11 years later! Now I realize that advances in computing power have made CGI more accessable on a budget, and so any jackass low-budget movie can use CGI these days . . . but crimeny, get a half-decent freaking artist and use some damn motion capture or SOMETHING so it looks better than the rest of the crap that's out there. Even a lot of big-budget movies are guilty of having crappy CGI, and to me that's just absurd. Take the time to do it right and have it at least look half decent, OR cut back on the effects. A movie can be plenty good without lots of crappy extra special effects, and in fact may damn well be HURT by an overabundance of shitty F/X, rather than a lesser amount of good F/X.
pointedview
May. 10th, 2004 08:43 am (UTC)
Re: On CGI . . .
I think you'd be safe reading it -- the lj-cut was because there was a list of upcoming summer movies that I thought might be a little long. My post really doesn't contain anything regarding the plot or characters of Van Helsing, just a comment or two on technical merit and performances.

You cite an excellent example with Jurassic Park. Also 100% agreed that I'd rather have quality over quantity in a movie. A few good, well-placed special effects can offer a much better impression than a lot of jarringly-bad artifacts flying across the screen.

So, yeah, pretty much wholly agreed. :)

Profile

Twin Peaks: Snoqualmie
pointedview
pointedview

Latest Month

January 2019
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

About Me:

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes