|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was so disappointed in Tim Burton's "reimagined" version of the original, and it seemed at the time that Fox would lay any further Apes sequels or prequels to rest for good. "Rise" was an unexpected surprise, and I liked it a lot. It will be very interesting to see where they take it from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, but I think it's too short to really get any idea about the picture. I look forward to seeing more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 8, 2014 - 2:03 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
The tech effects, one suspects, would have left Harryhausen reeling. In fact, it has taken quite a long time to finalise the visuals as they are in the here and now. And I've lost track of the stepwise refinement that's taken place since Pixar and Renderman planted the seed from way back to the present. I feel that unless the imagery is totally convincing (and that initial shot of Caesar on horseback certainly is not) then it's like taking one step forwards and two steps back. Burton's film did a good job of character creation using makeup effects. It has that going for it with the exception of, perhaps, Helena Bonham Carter's minimalist 'chimpanzee' makeup effects. I agree it didn't quite make the leap in plot, however, the actors - in particular Tim Roth - bent over backwards in their attempts at performance art. That could be done with this film. The irony is that CGI is too tempting a tool to be left unused. I feel it's use in this new film is just a tempering, or, sharpening of a still fairly blunt instrument. There's still some way to go before even borderline suspension of disbelief is reached. True, there are many instances where we've all seen CGI and not even noticed it was there. I appreciate all that. But we're talking of a complete live-action movie in which every shot has to convince without hesitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|