First of all, I normally HATE CGI, but in this film I think it's done spookily well.
Love the performances and Mary Elizabeth Winstead doing a 'Ripley'.
Great cast overrall and a nice pace, intrigue, suspense...thrills and horror.
LOVE it. I also adore the 1951 original and the 1982 classic.
Fan of it myself
shareI didn't hate it, but it's pretty flawed.
I saw some outtakes of the practical effects, and they looked pretty good. I wonder why they decided to go with CGI anyway. They think that's what the audience expects now?
CGI just made the effect of the alien superb in my view. As I said, I normally hate CGI.
share[deleted]
> other great films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) and Evil Dead (2013)
Hahahaha.
It's a good movie. Its CGI just pales in comparison to the practical effects used in the 1982 film. It's also meant to be a prequel to that movie, but it clashes with it in a few ways, both in-universe, and out.
It's also a different type of movie, and people usually think different = bad when they've enjoyed the prior.
Yeah but I've seen some bad horror movies. I know when I see bad. In fact I switch off. I guess we can't always like everything.
shareI liked it a lot better than the stupid first remake with Kurt Russell.
I like the original the best simply because it is a classic and done so well for its time.
I just never liked the John Carpenter version.
Wasn't there another remake before this one too. That was not bad.
It's a very good movie, people who hate it just compare it to the 1982 onr
shareit was OK
not the worst, not the best. Winstead gave a decent lead.
IT WAS...ALRIGHT...FLAWED,BADLY PACED AND POORLY WRITTEN...PLUS THEY SHOT THE WHOLE THING WITH EXCEPTIONAL PRACTICAL EFFECTS AND THEN THE STUDIO MADE THE CALL THE COVER THEM ALL UP WITH CGI...WHICH LOOKS CRAPPY.
share