I mean, I dont think I have ever, EVER, seen CGI this poorly constructed. They literally look like they were cut-and-pasted onto the screen using Adobe 6. The lighting looks completley off, as if the weremonkeys...I mean werewolves...absorb light or something.
Not to mention, the design on these wolves are horrendous. It should be renamed "An American Ape Monster In Paris".
I have El Sonoma del Torra de Fiero Syndrome. Be happy you don't. Trust me.
[deleted]
Yeah, the quality (or lack thereof) of the monsters was really distracting.
shareI think Spawn, which came out the same year, may have worse effects but it's pretty close
shareIt came out in 1997 with a budget of $22m. It didn't come out in 2015 with a budget of $90m.
shareI've just seen this movie for the first time -- I'm surprised at how bad the CGI was, even for the 90s, although that's no excuse as there was already some damn good CGI back then.
Super cheap looking in this one. The acting was also B-movie. . .
Yes it was so bad compared to the original and considering the original didn't use CGI.
I didn't think the plot was awful,I mean bearing in mind that the plots of these types of film are far fetched by nature!
An American werewolf in London had some moments of real humour and was genuinely terrifying at the same time,the second one failed to live up to that.
CGI werewolves almost always look like crap when compared to old school hands effects.The big CGI werewolf transformation at the end of Cravens Cursed looked like a cartoon compared to An American werewolf in Londons effects.
shareYeah, I was surprised at how bad the effects were. Must have been a lower budget project.
share