No doubt they loved shooting in the dark to cover up their poor creature FX. This movie was made almost 20 years after the first 'Alien'. It's funny how 'Mimic' is already dated with bad CGI and mediocre make-up/latex FX.
Yet, 'Alien' STILL holds up over 30 years later.
I'd disagree pretty strongly with that. I think the effects hold up really quite well.
___
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEkmoawOih0
You're easy to please.
shareToday I watched it for the first time and FX wasn't bad at all. It didn't look outdated or that it bothered me. But the movie isn't good anyway.
shareComparing Mimic, a movie with a troubled production, early CGI effects, and a relatively low budget, to Alien seems a bit harsh. Mimic is a flawed movie, but all things considered given its production history, I think the final film is good fun.
Most of the shots in the film are practical effects. Only truly bad CGI I remember is the male, but that's only a brief section. Most of it, except for things requiring rapid movement, is practical. And yes: being a low budget, 1990s movie the CGI doesn't look too great. Del Toro's use of animatronics and
Also: Don't be hating on shooting in the dark. Ridley Scott exploits the hell out of the darkness to keep the full body of the Alien hidden...and why bring Alien into the argument? Has anyone ever claimed Mimic to be better than Alien? I don't think so. Mimic is just fun to watch. Especially if you're a del Toro fan as its full of his tropes even with the problems he had with producers/studio.
Mimic is flawed, but I think the director's cut is a lot of fun and gives a hint of Guillermo del Toro's talent early in his career.
Guillermo del Toro showed us what he could do with only $19 million and artistic freedom in Pan's Labyrinth so I think it evens out ;)
"There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking."
The FX have held up well.
share