I wouldn't go that far, but it was pretty brutal at times for a film of this magnitude. You'd think they'd divert a bit more of the budget for this to at least give it a bit of polishing and have it look realistic.
At times it was distracting for me, but I didn't let it become a major focal point of my attention.
The sequel had $35M more for the estimated budget just to point that out.
There's an old saying -- people see bad effects only in bad movies, because there's nothing else to see.
If a movie has skilful writing, dedicated acting and competent directing, the rest will blend into the background with a grace. The movie could still employ mediocre sets or CGI post-production, but it wouldn't really matter.
If a movie has skilful writing, dedicated acting and competent directing, the rest will blend into the background with a grace. The movie could still employ mediocre sets or CGI post-production, but it wouldn't really matter.
There's an old saying -- people see bad effects only in bad movies, because there's nothing else to see.
"Where is this saying from? Pakistan?"
Nope. It's definitely from India where all the worst acting, storylines and Special defects congregate. Unless you think that a dude jumping up fifty feet in the air to punch out another guy dropping bombs on him on a cliff is somehow the height of cinematic excellence!
The CGI in the original was pretty shonky too, so they're just keeping up tradition!
Computers don't seem to have mastered vehicle physics yet, at all... It's always the scenes where some type of transport crashes that it looks the worst.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
I agree that thes effects were quite ridiculous looking. I've seen a lot of movies that have pretty spectacular CGI effects. But most of the CGI effects had me rolling my eyes. I like the comment I read earlier about them looking like they were made for TV. That seems pretty accurate.
Le Roi Est Mort, VIVE Le Roi! - E N I G M A 3
More trolls let alone mainstream critics being contrarian. Apparently if a movie isn't a superhero movie by a major studio, CGI immediately looks terrible to the eye since so-called critics/nerds are too busy drooling over how pretty they think ScarJo or Henry Cavill look in their awful suits let alone the atrocious alien designs presented there.
The new X-Men films also had lackluster CGI but that didn't stop them from being rather enjoyable movies. These Olympus Has Fallen films had rather solid CGI considering their budget and comparing it to SHARKNADO or any of those other films by The Asylum shows how little you guys know.
Watch Chris Nolan's hackneyed premise and CGI laden throughout The Dark Knight Rises and tell me that looks comparable to this sequel which from the get-go tells you that you will have to suspend belief. So far, all the mainstream action movie review sites love it and all the critics who hate it are the types who didn't mind the first film, hated the first movie or hate any Action/Adventure movie that's not an already gratuitous Star Wars/Trek, Avengers or Alien sequel.
These same critics also hated fun movies like AIR FORCE ONE and MURDER AT 1600 and thought garbage like RED DAWN and WHITE HOUSE DOWN were supposed to be comedies (News flash: they weren't! They were just bad movies which couldn't succeed in either the comedy or action territory).
This movie was made for those of us who like films like the DIE HARD saga or the TV show 24. If you hate either of those, then why bother watching this to begin with? Because you hate involving Action Thrillers that had solid characters, relentless tension, great cast members and give you a reason to go to the movies, that's why!
But like most crybabies bashing this movie, they will hate it simply because they think it's something it's not (if it was propaganda, it would clearly have a message to send which it didn't) or ask that it be based on a overrated comic book. Go back to your parent's basement and let real action fans who like fun movies from the 80s and 90s embrace this, okay?
They movie only had something like a $60 million budget. For an action movie, that's not a lot. The first movie had pretty mediocre CGI, too, to be fair.
share"Computers don't seem to have mastered vehicle physics yet, at all..."
Late reply, I know, but have you seen what home computers can do IN REAL TIME? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tPrj1e04gw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr8q53qXCwo (check 5:25 for actual plane crash!) etc. - and that's some indie game on Steam that no one knows of (and I've never played, just heard of it).
Now imagine what computer clusters capable of rendering movies should be able to do... unless you use interns to produce movie CGI.
It's pretty bad, but there are far far worse out there.
share