i wanted to like this film...the first cube is one of myfavourite films
but i have a question about cgi...
the spinning razor looks terrible. there is no way anyone in the film could have thought otherwize....its not ok , or passable...its really bad.
so why have it. it just brings the movie down...work on it till its right or change the look...but why put something so bad looking in your film?
The end sequence's CGI looked pretty bad too when Kate jumped into that hole, even in the director's commentary they admitted that it looked rather cartoonish, but it was the music that accompanied it that made it passable.
Everything doesn't happen for a reason, people simply justify reasons for things that happen
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd like to argue with your examples. The only reason why Silent Hill looked good was because the director wanted to do more prosthetic than CGI. That's why his monsters looked good. Resident Evil's Licker CGI was terrible. The first time you see it getting out it looked so laggy and ugly. The only reason why it looked better in the end was because it was a real prosthetic. Nemesis looked terrible in the 2nd Resident Evil and that's because they used little to no CGI on him but I'm sure it would look bad if they tried anyway.
shareYeah the razor thing looked bad after it killed Jerry, and the acting during that scene was not that good when they are supposed to be looking at the razor hypercube form. Also this film was released in 2002 and the effects were done probably by late 2001, so you cannot compare the effects to today's standards.
shareI agree. They could have simply gone with a different idea that was less CG reliant. Totally took me out of the film.
shareI thought the spinning thing looked great until it meatgrindered Jerry. That looked totally bogus. After seeing someone literally "cubed" in the last movie, this one was disappointing in terms of both horror and carnage. I'm glad they went back to the old school for Cube: Zero.
share[deleted]