The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just seen it in a preview screen at a cinema near me.
Great film. All the effects are really good and so is the story.
Some people say it's better than Star Wars but I have not seen that so I cannot say.
But the film is brill, if you haven't seen it already (cinemas near you might be previewing) I rocomend you see it, you won't be dissapointed.
Great film. All the effects are really good and so is the story.
Some people say it's better than Star Wars but I have not seen that so I cannot say.
But the film is brill, if you haven't seen it already (cinemas near you might be previewing) I rocomend you see it, you won't be dissapointed.
Page:
Oh dear. Just come back from it.
It started so promisingly, the way mr.Parker developed into Spiderman was slightly comical but very well done. Then from then on it was just pure and utter cheese. It escalated into one big power rangers rip-off. The effects were average, what i come to expect nowadays, and the plot was terribly predictable.
Complete waste of time/money. The ending was poor "i am Spiderman" was the last words, exactly in place for a cheapskate sequel *shakes fist* im not impressed.
It started so promisingly, the way mr.Parker developed into Spiderman was slightly comical but very well done. Then from then on it was just pure and utter cheese. It escalated into one big power rangers rip-off. The effects were average, what i come to expect nowadays, and the plot was terribly predictable.
Complete waste of time/money. The ending was poor "i am Spiderman" was the last words, exactly in place for a cheapskate sequel *shakes fist* im not impressed.
Vottanator wrote:
Putting a CG man (not
> alien!) in the same shot as real men just doesn't work.
I seem to recall that Al Pacino is in a movie in development at the moment, in which one of the characters is entirely CG. That, based on your logic, should fail miserably.
Putting a CG man (not
> alien!) in the same shot as real men just doesn't work.
I seem to recall that Al Pacino is in a movie in development at the moment, in which one of the characters is entirely CG. That, based on your logic, should fail miserably.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> I seem to recall that Al Pacino is in a movie in development at the
> moment, in which one of the characters is entirely CG. That, based on
> your logic, should fail miserably.
It's called sim0ne. All actors in the film are real, its just one of them plays a CGI person. Basically al pachino makes an actress on his computer, and she becomes big and all that, anyway, I don't think there is any charecter in the film who is completely CGI animated.
> I seem to recall that Al Pacino is in a movie in development at the
> moment, in which one of the characters is entirely CG. That, based on
> your logic, should fail miserably.
It's called sim0ne. All actors in the film are real, its just one of them plays a CGI person. Basically al pachino makes an actress on his computer, and she becomes big and all that, anyway, I don't think there is any charecter in the film who is completely CGI animated.
Some of the stuntmen in Pearl Harbour were CG, and as you didn't see them up close, they looked believeable
Just saw a thing about Hollywood on BBC2, and they showed how in Gladiator, the actor Oliver Reed died before they'd finished filming his scenes. Now that I've seen that backgrounds/people etc were added digitally to his final scenes, I can see it's fake. It's like when you EXPECT something to be fake, ie you *know* they can't really have a person doing the things Spidey does, you spot it. However, when you don't even know it's CGI (like some of the stuff in Pearl Harbour) it seems real
Just saw a thing about Hollywood on BBC2, and they showed how in Gladiator, the actor Oliver Reed died before they'd finished filming his scenes. Now that I've seen that backgrounds/people etc were added digitally to his final scenes, I can see it's fake. It's like when you EXPECT something to be fake, ie you *know* they can't really have a person doing the things Spidey does, you spot it. However, when you don't even know it's CGI (like some of the stuff in Pearl Harbour) it seems real
I thought the pearl harbour attack was just plain stupid. Mostly CGI, it didn't at once seem real to me, it made me feel like I watching star wars. Like the rest of the film, a big dissapointment.
I saw this film when I was in the states recently, it is preety good except for the continuity errors.
Yeah, the CG planes in Pearl Harbour didn't look too good, but the ships did and most of the explosions did
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Yeah, the CG planes in Pearl Harbour didn't look too good, but the
> ships did and most of the explosions did
Agreed, the explosions looked awesome when they bombed that japanease factory. The problem I had was with all those planes crashing. Just felt like the special effects team where showing off a little.
> Yeah, the CG planes in Pearl Harbour didn't look too good, but the
> ships did and most of the explosions did
Agreed, the explosions looked awesome when they bombed that japanease factory. The problem I had was with all those planes crashing. Just felt like the special effects team where showing off a little.
Well, my brother will be getting back from seeing the film soon so I'll ask him how it was.
OK. Saw it last night and thought it was OK. Not brilliant, but OK. Two of my friends said it was awful, no-one thought it was excellent.
It just seemed like too much of a set-up for a sequel/trilogy. Sure, Parker was good, and so was Dunst, but the plot just seemed a bit thin. Nothing much really happens. There are a couple of "battles", but the main fight scene just seems to be another small bit, and then the film ends.
Now I have no problem with a film being intended as the start of a trilogy, as long as they still make it a good film. Each section has to be good as a film itself. This one isn't. Hopefully the second one will be better. (Obviously the exception to this rule is LotR where you are never expected to only see one of the films).
This is a good film to waste a couple of hours. It is a blockbuster - normal rules apply, lots of explosions, SFX and cheesy lines. Go in expecting the above and you'll enjoy it. Go in expecting an amazing movie and you'll be disappointed.
It just seemed like too much of a set-up for a sequel/trilogy. Sure, Parker was good, and so was Dunst, but the plot just seemed a bit thin. Nothing much really happens. There are a couple of "battles", but the main fight scene just seems to be another small bit, and then the film ends.
Now I have no problem with a film being intended as the start of a trilogy, as long as they still make it a good film. Each section has to be good as a film itself. This one isn't. Hopefully the second one will be better. (Obviously the exception to this rule is LotR where you are never expected to only see one of the films).
This is a good film to waste a couple of hours. It is a blockbuster - normal rules apply, lots of explosions, SFX and cheesy lines. Go in expecting the above and you'll enjoy it. Go in expecting an amazing movie and you'll be disappointed.
Page: