Definitely Nay for me. While it looks good, the slick visuals are empty and lifeless, like a wax apple. You'd have one on your table, but wouldn't want to eat it.
"I'm Jules Winnfield, I'm here to talk to you about the briefcase initiative"
Agreed. Although sometimes it's just distracting scenery porn. Although something that distracts from the acting of (all the cast under 30 years old) can't be too bad.
Sometimes a simple built set is a lot better, instead of having to act against just a massive bluescreeen. See here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SceneryPornWhile George Lucas is not a very good character director, he does know how to impress with his wide pans over alien landscapes in Star Wars. The Gungan bubble-city in Episode 1, the floating city in Empire Strikes Back, the Death Star, as well as the entire Order 66 scene in Revenge of the Sith are good examples that show where he truly excels."I'm Jules Winnfield, I'm here to talk to you about the briefcase initiative"
The battle scenes are like watching a cartoon.
shareNay, aside from Revenge of the Sith. That was the only time that I didnt feel that these fake effects were being shoved in everywhere George Mucus could put them. Also 2005 effects were much better than 1999 effects.
Remember, remember the fifth of November
Definitely NAY!
episode I was ALL eye candy & very little substance...arguably the WORST movie on the box office Top 10 list!
The original trilogy relied on a little something called "story".
***
Recent:
Tropic Thunder: 4/10
Wall-E: 8/10
Quantam of Solace: 8/10
Madagascar 2: 6/10
I was thinking the same thing. Too much CGI makes the scene literally "unreal."
shareI was thinking the same thing. Too much CGI makes the scene literally look "unreal."
share