Jan. 28, 2003, 7:48 a.m. CST
I liked all the T3 trailers thus far.
Jan. 28, 2003, 7:48 a.m. CST
by KID AB
What is your take on this development, and BTW the only reason i will see T3 is seeing Claire Danes firing a machine gun.
Jan. 28, 2003, 7:53 a.m. CST
Don't care if I'm first or not, I'm stil excited about seeing Hulk, Daredevil, X2, even Teminator 3 this summer. But more than all of those, the Matrix sequels. I agree with the above, that people should stop being so negative about films that we've seen, what, maybe 2 minutes of before they come out? I think it'll be a great year for films, geeks or otherwise. And I can't wait for City of God to come out here in France to check it out.
Jan. 28, 2003, 7:54 a.m. CST
Mori doesn't go for the whole 'this movie sucked my cock so hard I had to stick my fingers down its throat then pump my goo up its ass while feeling the gag reflex constrict my love pump.' Mind you, I've just kinda turned myself on so maybe thats not such a good thing...
Jan. 28, 2003, 8:04 a.m. CST
I was starting to believe that 90% of contributors here believed the Hulk looked "too CGI". FX to support story.... thank you, Moriarty. Good to hear. #### T3...? I just remember laughing a bit. Maybe they shouldn't have put that godawful Schwartzenegger/SuperBowl Players spot so early (you know, the one where the Terminator introduces the players... yeah, that one.) It made it too easy to dismiss the next ACTUAL trailer I saw. #### I gotta disagree on Bad Boys II. It looks like it could be fun, but the best part of the first movie was the silly "witty" banter. I think we saw most of that already in the trailer. The rest will be filled with explosions. Man, I need my coffee. --d
Jan. 28, 2003, 8:35 a.m. CST
by TV CASUALTY
The whole Hulk cgi issue is ridiculous. What's more ridiculous? The TBers saying he "looks too big". Looks to big? He's the incredible fucking Hulk! He IS too big. The T3 spots are pretty uninspiring. I'd love for this to be a slam-bang hit, but it looks so tired... I'm getting sick of the Daredevil spots, though. Shows too much. Anyway, nice article Mori, again. Screw all them anti-cgi'ers. It's the only way this movie would ever get made. If people never made a movie because the effects would not look 100% realistic, we'd have no Clash of the Titans, no Big Trouble in Little China, no Evil Dead movies, none of our classic favorites. suck it up, babies.
Jan. 28, 2003, 8:50 a.m. CST
Jan. 28, 2003, 8:54 a.m. CST
It was a great triler, it seems effects are excellent and it follows the T1/T2 story & action. Cannot understad why some people are still disappointed??? Look at the Matrix "wire-work". Is that really so original, perphaps in Hong-Kong, but ... Sorry for my bad Englis, I am from Europe.
Jan. 28, 2003, 8:56 a.m. CST
Plus Moriarty appears to be developing an actual career in film, whereas Harry seems to be stuck in perpetual World's Biggest Cheerleader mode. But! - they both have inexhaustible enthusiasm for all things film. And while Moriarty is several thousand times more coherent and polished a writer... and far less childish and sophmoric and not noticeably prone to filling your head with really disturbing sexual imagery in the middle of a look at say a new Disney film... and... wait, I forgot my point. Uhhh... I think it was something like "In The End, It's Enthusiasm That Really Counts, Isn't It?" But I may have just talked myself out of that. Harry seems to be getting increasingly slaveringly depraved - what's with the bullet-in-the-head animation? Amongst countless other things?
Jan. 28, 2003, 9:06 a.m. CST
Moriarty, your... your... oh, man! Why put the City of God review together with the look ate the SuperBowl spots??!! Obviously, all this monrons, or whatever the way it is written, will just talk back about that. shit reure, from brazil
Jan. 28, 2003, 9:07 a.m. CST
...it means people are stupid. "Hey Ma! Jim Carrey's makin's the dog pee in the toilet! Haw haw! Now the dog's takin' a dump! And he's got a newspaper! Haw! I'm gonna watch that agin!" sk
Jan. 28, 2003, 9:09 a.m. CST
by Just Plain Steve
Although it relied heavily on puppets, that has to be the example Harry is looking for.
....I meant Moriarty
Jan. 28, 2003, 9:25 a.m. CST
by Coatsy UK
...and that Matrix trailer just totally kicked my ass!
Jan. 28, 2003, 9:53 a.m. CST
by xavier masterson
Way to torpedo your movie before it evens comes out and before you even showed the fucking awful trailer that cost you 2 million to air.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:02 a.m. CST
How could anyone think that Anger Management looks better than Bruce Almighty - a role that Carrey was meant to play. Anger Management just looks like another stupid Adam Sandler flick with a REALLY bad premise. Ok, he has no anger management issues, but somehow people keep telling him he does - somehow I'm not rolling in the aisles. The premise has work in context with the film - something that won't be happening in AM.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:02 a.m. CST
Moriarty, this is the first time I've responded to something you wrote, because it's the first time I've heard anyone who is on the business end of this site give an objective take on McG and his Charlie's Angels movies. There has been a real hate-a-thon going on against McG because his work so far has been mostly flash, glitter and high levels of mayhem. So what? That's the man's style, just as Spielberg has his, Paul Thomas Anderson has his and so on. If it's not your thing, don't watch the films. That being said, I appreciate, Moriarty, your objectivity regarding CA2: Full Throttle. Just as in the original, at no time is it suggested that this film will be anything more than a thrill ride, high voltage eye candy or whatever. You make this point very succinctly. I also appreciate your comparison of it to T3, which, I'm inclined to agree with you, seems to offer more of the same from T2 with nothing truly new to show. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean T3 will be a bad film if Arnie, explosions and bad ass terminators are your thing. Taste is subjective, my friends, and that's that. Will McG ruin Superman? Who knows, but it can't get any worse than Superman IV: Quest for Peace. Are the Charlie's Angels movies pure dumb fun? You betcha, but so is a day at an amusement park. Good job, Moriarty.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:07 a.m. CST
Moriarty... I have to say there are probably plenty of nitpickers out there fussing over this little detail and that little detail, but for me the question is "Does it serve the movie?" Or "Does it jar me and pull me out of the movie?" I think the Lord of the Rings films are superior to the latest Star Wars run (and I am a big SW fan), not only because the scripts are superior. The New Zealand gang also used as much tangible items as possible. And that is the important issue for me. Those movies FEEL tangible. like I can step into them and get lost in them. Even Gollum in full CGI works because you have one actor giving a great portrayal and body work that the cgi is built from. Whereas Yoda is Frank Oz via telephone, literally phoning in his performance. And in the "Making of" stuff on the DVD, you see that each programer acted out Yoda's reactions before drawing them with computers. As a result, you have multiple actors playing Yoda who have no acting training whatsoever. As a result Yoda is emotionally flat on screen and changeable in his subtlties from animator to animator. All of Clones (while a fun ride at times) feels vacant, because it is. You have actors on big blue soundstages without so much as a real prop hardly. The Hulk does look great... for a video game. A truly kick-ass video game that I would love to own, but he does not feel tangible or part of the environment we are watching him in. My beef is not that his skin color is a little too green or that his hair does not feel like perfect real hair. My beef is he is a major character in the movie... THE major character and he does not feel tangible. I am distracted. Now... maybe when the movie comes out... the narrative will be so strong and they will do some little CGI touch-up in the next months that will make me forget and not dwell on little details, which is the goal of a good movie. I hope so. I'd love to see a good Hulk. But I hung out with a lot of non-geek boy and non-fan boy types and they ALL cringed at the look of the Hulk. It looks weak and it is a shame.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:12 a.m. CST
by Moe Syzslak
...we have found common ground! I agree with every single thing you said about Daredevil. Now if you'd just drop your freaky Kylie Minogue obsession, you c0ould hang out in my tree house.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:15 a.m. CST
Its genuinely dispiriting to see a film like Cidade de Deus hidden underneath an article about trailers for films that will make hundreds of millions of dollars and will receive thousands of posts from fans too immature to realise that the correct CGO shading of the hulks pants does not the film make. Ive seen City of God twice and its superb. Reminded me why I loved films so much and Id thought films like that had died long ago, swamped by multi million Event movies. I'll go to see Matrix and The Hulk, and Im sure they'll be bloody good fun too. I wont niggle and criticise a CGI sequence, I'll enjoy the film. Like I enjoyed and appreciated City of God. I know im pushing a piece of string against a rushing juggernaut, but the geeks of the world need to stop being so pissy and shallow about CGI. It enhances the film,if the film is good, who gives a fuck about what the CGI looks like. Grow up for fucks sake, and Moriarty, please give City of God its own space. It doesnt deserve to be hidden amongst the geek posts about CGI. Cheers
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:40 a.m. CST
by xavier masterson
From what I've gathered from reading about the struggles to get Superman made, the shuffling of directors all comes down to one guy: Josh Harnett. Harnett didn't want to work with Ratner, Bay wanted Harnett but passed when he couldn't get a percentage of the B.O. Let me make this as simple as I can...Josh Harnett is an awful, awful casting decision. So as long as you are dead set on casting him as Supes you might as well let me direct the new Superman movie and I couldn't direct shit into the bowel if it didn't come out of my asshole. Speaking of which...
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:46 a.m. CST
I just saw City of God over the weekend here in Chicago and either this is going to be one helluva year for moviegoing or I just saw the best film that I'll see all year. What a movie, this is the most thrilling and alive film I've seen since Pulp Fiction or GoodFellas. I can't recommend this brilliant film enough, SEE IT!!
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:51 a.m. CST
Good show, Moriarty! I hate it when people start complaining about how "fake." CGI looks. The truth is any and all special effects look "fake" sometimes. The human eye/mind is very good at picking out reality. The difference with CGI is they can do so much more... I mean what would these people prefer - a big puppet for the Hulk? Oh I know they want Lou Ferigno in green makeup and torn blue jeans...oh that would be good. I think the truth is there is just no pleasing these people...they need something to bitch about. As for the most watched on TIVO two letters T and A. They watched Bruce Almighty to oogle the chicks panties when Bruce causes her dress to go up... and Charlies Angels... well... OH and how is this for fake looking my sister-in-law asks, "Oh my gosh who is playing the hulk?" She didn't get it when I said his initials are CGI!
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:59 a.m. CST
...but it was a little too CG.
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:04 a.m. CST
Yeah Freejack, those brazilian slums looks so fake. Lol. As if there's really places like that!
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:11 a.m. CST
It will, you know. Mark my words. Huge opening weekend as all the comic book geeks will go. Hell, on opening day you won't find a single man over 28 or woman period (except for mothers of young children) in the theatre. Then a 65% dropoff on weekend 2, and it will struggle to do, oh, $125 mill final gross. Remember where you heard it.
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:12 a.m. CST
by Human Tornado
Makes one wonder how much the producers of SUPERBALL spent in SFX to make it look like the Bucks had actually won =) City of God is a friggin
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:14 a.m. CST
The reason why people complain that computer effects look "fake" in movies, especially lately, is because there have been movies which had a great deal of special effects that were always completely believable. Hell, just look at Fritz Lang's movie "Destiny". I think the effects in that movie are infinitely more convincing than about 85% of the movies released nowadays. That's kind of unfortunate, since "Destiny" is a silent movie that was released in 1921. Anyone who sees no problem with more modern computer effects owes it to themselves to track this movie down; and I should add that "Destiny" is not one-of-a-kind. There are a great deal of movies from the silent era just as convincing.
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:44 a.m. CST
Um, you ever see a mirage? Looks like water, but it isn't water, is it? Now imagine you're living thousands of years ago, you're a nomad, trying to find a place to get some food and drink for your family. If you spend your life chasing mirages instead of seeking out actual water, you're gonna DIE. See, human beings have EVOLVED with this ability to tell real from fake. It's a survival skill. Our eyes got really good so we wouldn't DIE. Now, when we see a giant green man in purple pants breaking shit, we can tell it isn't real. We know that giant green man in purple pants breaking shit is a mirage. We ALL know this. The difference is that some of us can just enjoy the fun spectacle of a giant green man in purple pants breaking shit, and have fun with it for what it is, while some OTHERS feel that pointing out that that's not a REAL giant green man in purple pants breaking shit is some sort of testament to their ocular ability. It's not. It's just proof that you've evolved (somewhat) so that you wouldn't die. Okay? You're not special. We can all tell that shit isn't real, so you don't need to brag about it ANYMORE. Now try to rewire your fucking brain so that you can have FUN with these movies again, like you did when you were little, before you thought that hating all the right things would make you look "cool." Because it doesn't.
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:54 a.m. CST
What is up the general faggotry on this site. With all the talk of penises and asses on here it sounds like a prison pen pal orgy in here. And by the way Special effects are scondary to any fucking movie, its the entertainment that counts. Clash of the Titans looks fake as hell, but its still a fun movie to watch.
Jan. 28, 2003, 12:06 p.m. CST
It seems that I alone have a dissenting opinion of City of God. All this talk about Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas influence is pure bullshit. It may use some of the structural conventions, but it's more a meditation on exactly how fucked up life can be when you mix guns and poverty. This point is nailed home early on in the film, however and starts to beat you over the head with it. The story is too sprawling and I couldn't get a handle on so many characters. The repeated acts of violence not only desensitized, but it actually (and this is a cinematic first for me) distracted me. Los Olvidados meets Caligula. I suppose the repetitive violence was the point of it all. I just wanted a smaller, more focused story on a few characters that I could invest in so that their outcomes would have more of an emotional punch. As it stands, Cidade de Deus is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Jan. 28, 2003, 12:22 p.m. CST
Well, according to another review of his draft, they mention the latest T3 footage bears no resemblence to Tedi's draft, so, looks like your talking bollocks as always. Oh, and Hulk sucked.
Jan. 28, 2003, 12:29 p.m. CST
Moriarity submits: "...I
Jan. 28, 2003, 12:34 p.m. CST
realism w/ CG (the skin textures and intergrating them into the shots) is hard to pull off. So far the only ones that I think nailed it was Yoda in ATOC and Gollum in LOTR. But from that trailer, the Hulk's movements were fluid and badass and the closeups looked very - very cool. I mean, look at Spidey he didn't intergrate all the well into the shots but he MOVED like the Spidey from the comics (well, considering how comic pages are static --- you know what I mean) I mean, as long as he's big, green, in purple shorts and badass it'll work.
Jan. 28, 2003, 12:55 p.m. CST
by Mirrorball Man
The more I read Moriarty's reviews, the more I think he's Kareem Said to Harry Knowles' Simon Adebisi.
Jan. 28, 2003, 1:11 p.m. CST
C'mon guy, what is acceptable in the mind's eye changes over time. The CGI critics have their points - especially for guys like me who are gamers and see the same or better artywork in our games. We expect more from the onscree. renderfarm animators. And as someone who works in retouching I am BAFFLED about why they can't get it right and have some theories (I could be totally wrong): 1. They create and render these things not in the environment they exist - i.e. create creatures then insert. If they created graphics on actual working print with real actors around maybe they would be better. 2. Not science enough. Human flesh is basically fat molecules interspersed with hair, etc. i know some work is being done in layering skins - which is a good first step - but maybe instead of smooth skin they need to be interlinked micro-meshes to more accurately reflect true skin/light interactions. of course then you sweat, etc as appropriate. I am open to an Art Director position to achieve this goal. Cheers and yeah I sure as hell hope Hulk is great - Ang Lee's name says it all.
Jan. 28, 2003, 1:44 p.m. CST
by Lord Shatner
No fat suit or CGI required
Jan. 28, 2003, 1:49 p.m. CST
You can't throw Almodovar in with Latin cinema. The guy is from another continent! Just because they speak the same language doesn't mean they share the same culture. Spain = Europe.
Jan. 28, 2003, 1:54 p.m. CST
BUT IT HASN"T PLAYED HERE YET! So, I will talk about Superbowls. Ever notice how while reading a talkback you have a lot to say and then once you start on your own stuff you forget all of it? Okay...now I remember. FIRST: Dolphin...We know CGI artists spend long hours. So do carpenters, brick masons and garbage men. Still, if a job isn't done well, I will notice and vocalize it. SECOND: We go to movies to see stories and some of those stories make us believe in things that aren't! Superman, way back, made us believe a man could fly. Star Wars made us believe in Jedis and Wookies (some of you STILL believe in stuff). Jurassic Park, while NOT a great movie in retrospect, was absolute movie MAGIC because, the first time I saw a Dinosaur and Mr. WIlliams the score whore added his cue, it was MAGIC! I believed dinosaurs walked the earth. Naturally, I want to believe that the Hulk also walks the earth. Gollum from 6-months prior to TTT was NOT the same Gollum we have in the finished movie. I suggest everybody FREAKING RELAX and let Mr. Ang Lee finish his movie, then worry about the special effect. I really want the CGI to be more Gollum and less Scobby Doo, but more importantly I want Eric Banna to convince me of his inner-pain and I want to see Jennifer Connely dazzle me, which I feel rather secure in thinking. I hope for a GREAT movie in the Hulk, not just a great genre movie. TERMINATOR may be great, ALL depending on the writing. Cross those floor-dragging nuckles you boneheads. Admittedly, I fear most and pray most fervently for Daredevil not to suck....please please please please please.
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:08 p.m. CST
by Fatal Discharge
I enjoy it in the context of the film's story as creating something that doesn't exist in real life...ipso facto, a special effect. I WANT to be caught up in a world that doesn't exist; it's called having an imagination. I know these things aren't real but I enjoy Fantasy just like in pre-CGI films where there is stop-motion, men-in-suit monsters, tiny models blown up to gigantic size and plastic makeup monster effects. If you don't have one, you have the other; they're both fake. If the film works as a whole, then it doesn't matter if the effects are a 100% realistic. By the way, there's still 5 months until the Hulk is released and as with most big special-effect films, they work on the effects right up until a few weeks before it opens so I'm sure there will still be some tinkering done. To the person who said the film will collapse in its 2nd week box-office...nuh-uh. This is a brand-name character that is known by most of the general non-comic-book-lover population just like Spider-Man or Superman. Something like the X-Men's sharp 2nd-week decline can be caused by lack of an older generation's knowledge of the brand but the Hulk has already been popular from waaaay back in comics and the popular 70's tv series.
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:10 p.m. CST
Hey I hate the CGI biching bitches as much as morty, I mean who the fuck can bitch about that Matrix clip? But the Hulk is just awful. Its so bad its distracting. I don't need to see bits of sweat and individual muscles and any of that shit, just please don't look like a green smurf?!?!?!
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:20 p.m. CST
It's really entertaining to hear a group of passionate fanboys argue the quality of modern FX, making obeservations about compositing and animation as if they have any practical experience with filmmaking technology. And as for the TIVO stats? The only way this information could be considered an accurate gauge of popular tastes is if most households in America were Tivo households. opening weekend numbers are the only real way to gauge anticipation for a film, and word-of-mouth will decide if the film in question has any legs/longevity. Polls, stats, editorials, articles and focus groups are about as useful as a used condom when gaging these things. Sorry folks, you'll just have to wait till these films are finally released. I'm hearing lots of good things about City of God. Sounds pretty interesting. God knows I love action and FX, but there's more to fandom than just big blockbusters and adaptions of comics and fantasy novels. All genres of film should be valued. I'm all for anyone who's pushing the boundries of this art form, regardless of what genre their working in.
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:29 p.m. CST
by TV CASUALTY
Don't sweat it. Most of us don't like you.
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:36 p.m. CST
by Three Quarks
Why did superbowl-watching Tivo owners prefer to watch Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler teasers? Well, because geeks grew up reading comic books, which, while juvinile stuff, at least contain ideas, art, and abstract concepts, which prepares their minds for adulthood. Sports fans spend their childhood staring at men running around and collecting small pictures of them on cards. By the way, Moriarty, thank you for your eloquence about these constant complaints about CGI. Even Ebert, who criticized the amazing effects in Spider-Man, could learn a lesson from you. Does that idiot realize they created a computer-generated Manhatten that is indistinguishable from the real one? Arrgh! Again, thanks. Oh, and another thing, while I'm ranting. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT complain if to Harry if he does something that annoys you, because that guarantees he will continue to do it, except now he'll enjoy doing it, rather than doing it because he's just a clod. Believe it.
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:39 p.m. CST
by Moriarity Report
The cast is there to draw in the people I suppose. It's a good idea; Carey could make it work if he doesn't overdo it, which he always does, so we'll see. HULK will make over 200 million at least, so then this has the potential to be huge. Universal spends their money wisely on these ads.
Jan. 28, 2003, 2:54 p.m. CST
Moriarty writes, "The day someone can show me a film... ANY FILM... from any era of filmmaking... that relies on a lot of special effects and that is absolutely photoreal and flawless, then I
Jan. 28, 2003, 3:46 p.m. CST
If they can't do CGI properly, they shouldn't do it at all. Someone on the other thread said that the Hulk looks like Shrek, and it's true. Movies are supposed to be an immersive experience, and poor CGI feels like you're watching a videogame for 2 hours. It's fine for an 8-year old who just wants to see the Hulk smash things, but for anyone else it's hard to suspend disbelief. Poor CGI really takes you right out of the movie. And what's with the "Don't criticize the poor filmmakers, they work really hard on these movies" business. No offense, but I don't care if they work hard or not, and I don't care about their personal problems, I just care about the finished product. If it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks. When did everyone turn into a bunch of pansies around here? There's nothing wrong with saying that the Hulk looks like crap...because he does.
Jan. 28, 2003, 3:53 p.m. CST
by byron hadley
I am no Hulk fan, nor a comic fan so this is not a nitpick. The Hulk fucking looks like Shrek. He looked like shit to me, the outside observer who could not give less of a shit about this turd of a movie. McG is gay. Fastlane is the worst show in television history and is purely for faggots. The white dude on that show needs to be taken out and shot along with Drew Barrymore. Oh, and the Matrix looked pretty fucking cool as does City of God.
Jan. 28, 2003, 3:53 p.m. CST
The Hulk looked fine to me, we all know its cgi, the only part where i wished they didnt do and hope that it wont be in the movie is when he hammer threw that tank, only because the proportion or the scale is wrong and it just shows you look i am cgi. CGI works for the most part when it is unobstrusive not look at me, thats why Jurassic Park worked and gollum worked because it was part of the story and not obstrusive.
Jan. 28, 2003, 5:34 p.m. CST
by The Garbage Man
Sound advice. I'm curious, though, if you've actually read some of the shit you have spewed in the TB over the past few days, oh wise monkey.
Jan. 28, 2003, 5:43 p.m. CST
Excuse me the flawless film came out years and years ago its called 2001 directed by Stanley Kubrick. That film still looks flawless. Lets not forget Blade Runner (with the exception of the spinner wires) CGI sucks.
Jan. 28, 2003, 6:16 p.m. CST
One day, those three qualifiers will be as famous as Asimov's three laws of robotics. Okay, maybe not, but Mori certainly put some thought into it and I think it works. And Vegas, you're right on. These people have to rewire their brains and enjoy the pretty pictures regardless of how "real" they look. I read an essay about why everyone in Lovecraft's books goes nuts: they are simply unprepared to see Cthulu or any of his buddies. You have no point of reference for a giant octopus god and your brain would rather shut down than make a new point of reference encompassing such things. I'm sure if that bastard rose out of the ocean tomorrow morning, the TalkBacks would be filled with whiners complaining that his tentacles aren't slimy enough to scare them.
Jan. 28, 2003, 6:19 p.m. CST
Im looking forward to Terminator3, I think most of the bullshit its getting is way over the top. How someone can judge a film by a 1min trailer and say it looks like the teddy serafian scrip makes me laugh. (just more bullshit T3 has to take)
Jan. 28, 2003, 6:50 p.m. CST
Although that movie was bad , at least they tried to make the big Lizard look realistic and textured. The Hulk looks like a made for TV, animated CGI character. I've seen better Animated CGI in movies like Shrek, Final Fantasy, and Toy Story. Its not about bad CGI, it is about blending a Character into the right setting. The Hulk just does not fit into this movie. He is just to clean, cute and cuddly.
AHAHAHAHAH! This is the first time i've read this board and it just makes me laugh. "The seven foot green man built like the side of a house" just doesn't look real. Well, he um, he looks kinda fake! I suppose that would have something to do with the fact that at the time of casting it was probably quite difficult to find an green skinned actor to parade around in his shorts for six months out of the year? No? I suspect The Hulk looks 'cartoony' because he is based on a WAY over the top comic strip? Just a thought people.
Jan. 28, 2003, 8:26 p.m. CST
by Red Raider
....because the one thing I want to see & hear this summer at the theater is Agent Smith. Kicking cyber ass & uttering his famous line: "MISTER ANDERSON..." He's a bigger badasss than a pissed off Hulk or an entire uruk-hai army! Agent Smith rocks. ____"Human beings, are a disease. A plague of this planet. And we, are the cure."
Jan. 28, 2003, 9:59 p.m. CST
by The Garbage Man
Instead, I just have to laugh. Ha ha. Ha. Ha. Ahem.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:16 p.m. CST
hey harry fuckhead - get rid of that fucking annoying final destination 2 banner you no-cred industry puppet. and go ahead and delete me too.
Jan. 28, 2003, 10:33 p.m. CST
The same thing happened with Arnie's THE 6TH DAY and Raimi's SPIDER-MAN. The CGI scenes in the trailer looked cheezy and very "CGI", but the final product in the film was the shiznit. Quit barking about the CGI until the film is released on June 20th. BTW Jennifer Connelly was looking mighty tasty. T3 has me worried as well, but that may be a ruse. We'll see in a few months. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle just makes me want to call McG up right now and pitch Larry Kasanoff's untapped goldmine to him as a film(hint: early 80's cartoon/toy property) DareDevil spot was kinda rough. The spot that aired tonight during Smallville should have aired during the SuperBowl. Bruce Almighty was short. The longer version was far better and I applaud them for shortening it. Don't need the Bible thumpers in a tizzy. Bad Boys II...same as what Mori said. Mindreader!! Anger Managment? I wanna see this film, but the TV spot was kinda lame. Anyone know McG send'em my way. We need to chat. Seriously! Monkey
Jan. 28, 2003, 11 p.m. CST
I'll run right out and City of God- another depressing, life draining, soul sucking movie the same day I go to see Schindler's List or any number of other depressingly sad movies. When I want to watch realistic movies about human nature and the human condition I do what I have to do- which is to watch the news. All three pretentious people who think I need to learn something about life by watching those sorts of movies need to be high school teachers who actually make people watch that sort of movie. Blah. Give me The Matrix, Lord of the Rings or Braveheart any day. And somebody tell the overbosses here that those exploding noises coming from that damned Final Destination ad is making sure that I will specifically never ever see that movie. (it's that annoying)
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:23 p.m. CST
by Chow Yun-Phat
I'm buzzed, I just fired salvo on a needy lunatic and I'm tired of arguing the same old arguments. I could post the same film geek rhetoric that most of us all agree on and pretend I'm unique when I know I'm not. Instead, I'm going to get my nuts out and admit to the unpopular stuff, just for the hell of it before I go to bed. I expect to get blasted for at least some of it, if not all, but what the fuck. Someone needs to sound like a cunt besides fettastic. here are my true confessions. ___I loved the first Charlie's Angels and I geeked out to the super bowl trailer. I'll be there opening weekend. I liked Eight Legged Freaks. Made me feel like I was a kid watching Creature Features and it was only what it needed to be. I tell you fucks to quit bitching about CGI, but I have to agree that the CGI in SpiderMan bugged the fuck out of me. I LOVED the Hulk trailer, but which ever one of you pricks suggested that he looked like Shrek are completely right and I hate you for making me see that. I thought Jeepers Creepers rocked despite the fact that the second half obviously didn't do the first half justice. I (God Help Me) don't have too many complaints about the casting for Daredevil and actually think that the reimagined Bullseye looks pretty cool. If anyone is sending out warning flags it's Jennifer Gardner. I don't know why. I love her. I love Alias. I rejoiced when I heard she got the part of Elektra. Yet, something just isn't clicking as I watch the trailers. I still think Drew Barrymore is hot, even as she begins to resemble a live action Ms Piggy. (I said nothing about acting skills, so don't get crazy.) Although I liked LOTR:TTT overall, I found great deals of it mind numbingly boring, especially the bullshit with the Treants. I'm a HUGE fan of Piers Anthony's On A Pale Horse, having read it when I was a kid, but I'm not that concerend with Jamie Fox playing the lead. If he doesn't play it like Eddie Murphy, it should be fine. The guy can act decently when he plays it straight.___ That's all the anti-geek confessions I can remember at this time, yet that should do. Either rip me or admit to your own anti-geek secrets. I could care less. Just get some different arguments out here.
Jan. 28, 2003, 11:24 p.m. CST
Red Raider is Right. I watched THE MATRIX again and I have to say, the two most underrated performers are Gloria Foster (the Oracle) and Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith). ................... Foster I never heard of (she was in LEONARD PART 6 and CITY OF HOPE but I've never seen them), and I thought her character was potentially the dumbest character in the story. But man, she does NOT come off as out of place in her scene. It's not just that she's acting against Keanu The Human Void. She is just fucking MAGNETIC. When I would watch the film in the theaters, I'd watch the audience, and in the Oracle sequence, they were transfixed. To top it off, she has the single best audience line in the film: "Not too bright though." Classic. I hope, I hope, I hope she has a scene with Laurence Fishburne in RELOADED. ................................And then there's Hugo Weaving. Can you believe the career on this guy? Born in Nigeria. First noticed in PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT (Weaving, Guy Pearce, Terence Stamp, all playing transvestites -- Jesus!!). From there to Rex the Sheepdog in BABE and its sequel. And then? Agent Smith - Elrond - Elrond - Agent Smith - Agent Smith - Elrond. As an elf, he made Haldir look like an unshaven Vulcan wannabe and had all the coolest lines: "Cast it into the fire!... Destroy it!" "Our list of allies grows thin!" "The Blood of Numenor is all but spent." And back when nobody knew who the fuck he was, he was a little-noticed key to the success of THE MATRIX -- as I told everybody at the time (although I used the words "That guy, whatsisname, the one who played the head Agent" quite a few times). To have a really good struggle, you need a really fearsome opponent. If your villain isn't hard, what have you got? You've got something toothless like THE PHANTOM (imagine Treat Williams as Agent Smith ... or better yet, don't). Fortunately, Hugo Weaving is quite hard. Agent Smith looked scary as hell even when he was a simulacrum, frozen in the act of pointing a gun at Neo in the training simulation. Agent Smith is MUCH scarier than Neo, and not just because it's the most overmatched Villain-and-Protagonist pairing (in terms of acting skill) since Weaving faced off with Yahoo Serious in RECKLESS KELLY. Weaving looks like the Secret Service agent from Hell and acts like the T-1000 minus the tentacles. And once again he gets all the good lines, in those "long", "boring" sequences that Warner Bros. fought to cut out: "It was a disaster. Whole crops were lost." ... "Humans are a virus, Morpheus, and we... are the cure." ... "I ...Hate ... This Place. It's the smell! If there is such a thing!" ..............Fucking awesome. And the scene in the destroyed bathroom, where he starts out lying on his back, then slams his fists into the floor and somehow rises to a standing position, is one of the best quick action takes of the 1990s. Great shot. Goes right by, you don't remember it, but it never fails to draw a subtle "Whoah" from an audience. Weaving should guest host Saturday Night Live and goof on his characters. "So... Mr. Underhill. It seems you've been living ... two lives. In one life, you live in Hobbiton, you live simply, and you ... help your gardener with his mulching. In the other... you go by the name of Frodo, and possess the One True Ring of Power. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you, Mr. Underhill... but I believe you wish to do the right thing..."
Jan. 29, 2003, 12:07 a.m. CST
by Fish Tank
I do agree with the other posters that think City of God should get its own page - it looks/sounds like an incredible movie and I look forward to seeing it. Now - on to the Hulk. Jesus he's big! Will there ever be a director that realizes that with so much mass there would have to be an inordinate amount of food consumed? I think the Flash had to constantly eat to keep up with his increased metabolic rate, and they handled this in the Species movie with Sil's metamorphosis. I would LOVE to see a director throw in a little touch like that. Are you telling me that a 170 lb man bulks up to 1 ton in 2 minutes and back again with only a headache? How about ONE BIG FREAKIN' APPETITE? Gotta feed those cells and stretched skull. Great opportunity to cross-market with burger joints.
Jan. 29, 2003, 12:12 a.m. CST
From the first shot of Neo battling the Agent Smith Army, I could tell it was a CGI Keanu. Not to mention bad CGI. I can pick out about 99.9% of any blue screen/green screen shots, and bad CGI is world's easier to spot. The only good thing about the T3 commercial? Arnold didn't say a word! No "it's time" or "she'll be back". NOTHING! Everything else was more or less recycled from the trailer. Oh, and CGI explosions in NON-CGI enviroments almost ALWAYS suck. The BAD BOYS II ad was just a cut down on the trailer (which I liked). I'm a fan of the first film, and I will see this one. Also, the BAD BOYS chase sequence looked GREATLY better than the MATRIX chase sequence. Also, I saw the first CHARLIE'S ANGELS, and it was a good action comedy, but all the MATRIX-esque scenes were cringe-able. The ad for the sequel looks like more of what I didn't like in the first, and I won't see the sequel. HULK is more bad CGI. Howard the Duck looked more realistic than this cartoon, and I HATE Howard the Duck! Also, yes, "JURASSIC PARK" had flawless CGI, andso did its sequels. It's simply a shame that most films today have such shity or lackluster CGI. The Spidey CGI wasn't great, but it didn't detract much from the initial experiences. As for films of today . . . . "LORD OF THE RINGS" has the best CGI around. WETA is the effects & props house of the future. ILM should bow down to them. I want The Hulk to look REAL, or at least, realisitic. I want it to seem tangible. Granted, the Hulk is an extraordinary & fantastical character, but this could turn into a really bad b-movie if the effects aren't right. I mean, 30 stories tall? Even Roland Emmerich "GODZILLA" looked like god CGI for such a sizeable creature, but it's like "JURASSIC PARK". A creature that doesn't seem out-of-place being that large, but if they don't make the Hulk just right, then, I'd reluctantly shout out with Harry....MAN IN SUIT! MAN IN SUIT! MAN IN SUIT! I don't know. I'm starting to ramble, and I'll try to wrap this up nicely. I will see "DAREDEVIL" & "X2", but "THE HULK" is on hold until that CGI can convince me. I'm tired of crappy or lackluster CGI effects as this film market is drenched with them. I won't take the shit anymore! I mean, there's this ONE shot in "THE PHANTOM MENACE" during the BIG Naboo Gungan/Droid battle. This one hover tank gets hit with a bomb, and this smoke clears, and this one shot just looks SO unfinished it eats at me everytime I see it. I won't stand for shitty CGI any longer. I have spoken. -NJM Visit Michalak.Org!
Jan. 29, 2003, 12:29 a.m. CST
by I Love Harry!!!
Matrix: Keanu Reeves AICN: Drew McWeeney (POINT TO AICN) Matrix: Carrie Ann Moss AICN: Harry's New York Kitten (POINT TO MATRIX) Matrix: The One AICN: I am Yulaw! I am nobodys bitch! (POINT TO AICN) Matrix: Lawrence Fishburne is a bad mother AICN: badass is an uncle fucker (POINT TO MATRIX) Matrix: Welcome to the desert of the real AICN: MAN IN SUIT! MAN IN SUIT! MAN IN SUIT! (POINT TO AICN) Matrix: wire fu AICN: TB bitching (POINT TO MATRIX) Matrix: the agents will kill your ass AICN: Harry will ban your ass (POINT TO MATRIX) Matrix: Agent Smith AICN: BattlePoster (DRAW) THE WINNER, WITH A SCORE OF 4-3-1...THE MATRIX!!!
Jan. 29, 2003, 12:37 a.m. CST
"A virus. Human beings are a disease. A cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we....are the cure." I just took from the DVD itself. Don't quote the line if you can't get it right! -NJM
Jan. 29, 2003, 12:58 a.m. CST
You must be the world's foremost expert in "Bad CGI Identification". Amazing. Do you have a website? Can I learn the tricks? I'm always so fooled by these movie magicians and their computer trickery. Eh. #### I love how people tout Jurassic Park as having "the ultimate" or "flawless" CGI. If people were to watch that movie with the same critical eye as they do current films, they'd see the compositing aliasing. They'd see the tone difference. I am a big fan of what CG artists have done over the years. It's getting better. It's unfortunate that if you give these fans an inch they immediately demand a mile. Shrek 2? My ass. Wait for it. Judge on June 20th. --d
Jan. 29, 2003, 1:04 a.m. CST
Film is to be an immersive experience, and if the CGI, in any way, detracts from that experience, then it should NOT be utitlized. If they can't do it right, and they can't make look like a cartoon (unless it IS a cartoon), then it should be abandoned! I'm one of those guys that misses the likes of Rob Bottin, Tom Savini, and Stan Winston. I'm talking about Bottin's work on John Carpenter's "THE THING". Savini's "DAWN OF THE DEAD" & "FRIDAY THE 13th" work. Stan Winston designing & creating the "PREDATOR". I mean, the "ALIEN" films all had great creature effects, except for the CGI-laiden "RESURRECTION". I want physical creature effects, make-up effects, and the like. I'd prefer the MEN IN SUITS as opposed to the legion of CGI Star Wars characters. Greed & Jabba were KING! And a CGI Predator would look less convincing than Jar Jar. CGI can be a great tool, but if it's not rendered properly, it's a damaging tool. By definition CGI is fake, but the thing is to make it look as REAL as possible. And if ILM can't achieve that, then, it's time to let someone else step up the plate (i.e. WETA). -NJM
Jan. 29, 2003, 1:42 a.m. CST
I'm having trouble getting to sleep before 5am anymore, truthfully. Okay, the JP sequels don't have flawless CGI, and I'll succumb to the statement that the original JP was flawed. BUT for a film a decade old, it has better CGI than most films today, and they have access to better technology, even. THAT you must admit! As for the whole "eye for visual effects". I've been continually complimented for having an eye for detail, and if you really pay attention to most films, it's easy to spot blue screened effects. Though, CGI has made it somewhat harder to spot such things, but not always. Basically, I have a self-trained eye for detail, and it's no science or set of tricks. You watch these films enough times, and, along with the knowledge of movie "magic", you can pick out what's a blue screen shot and what was a black drop drop with glitter on it for a star field. I've been watching behind-the-scenes documentaries & featurettes for over a decade now, and simply put, I love learning about how a movie is made & how the newest effects make-up & technology works. I think I've said far too much on this board already, and I'll try to lay myself to sleep now. -NJM Visit Michalak.Org!
Jan. 29, 2003, 6:58 a.m. CST
Have to say that it was better putting CITY OF GOD on this post. Thanks Moriarty, i
Jan. 29, 2003, 10:55 a.m. CST
To reply to Badassunclefucka, yes I am heterosexual, but I work in several art fields, so I tend to be exposed a lot to homosexuals. It doesn't bother me, I could care less. Hel, if you find a squirel attractive, by all means drop trou and get busy. Im just saying this site is about film and lets leave it at that. I think we would al enjoy the site more without reading about someone's cum stained felching lips while they crap on a midgets head whos sucking off a donkey.
Jan. 29, 2003, 12:42 p.m. CST
by Clara Bow
Okay, now I'm pissed. This is the 2nd City of God review on this site, and the second time it's been tacked on to the end of something completely unrelated and brainless (the first time, I believe it was naked pictures of some would-be actress), so that the talkback can completely ignore this film which is, by the way, the most extraordinary film I've seen since, well, Y Tu Mama Tambien. I'm embarrassed that South America and Mexico are giving us the most challenging work in film since the hey day of Scorcese and Coppola, and we're discussing whether T3 with kick Charlie's Angels' emaciated asses.
Jan. 29, 2003, 6:34 p.m. CST
by E J Thribb
..if you at all get the chance. Superb film-making. Large cast, large number of interweaving plots - and completely gripping - not to mention disturbing (*spoiler* the look on Li'l Dice's 10 year old face face when he kills all thos people in the motel/whorehouse will stay with me for some time). See this movie.