henke on 19/5/2010 at 10:17
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
edit: plus dodgy CG tigers and CG Oliver Reed!
The tigers weren't computer generated, the shots of them were just edited together with the footage of tha gladiators. As for Oliver Reed, do you think someone who didn't know about it beforehand could've spotted that it wasn't actually him in that one scene?
I guess I gotta see it again but from what I remember the special effects in Gladiator were pretty seamless.
Scots Taffer on 19/5/2010 at 10:21
Quote Posted by henke
The tigers weren't computer generated, the shots of them were just edited together with the footage of tha gladiators. As for Oliver Reed, do you think someone who didn't know about it beforehand could've spotted that it wasn't actually him in that one scene?
I wasn't being serious. Just looking for possible things someone might complain about.
SD on 19/5/2010 at 10:43
Quote Posted by Muzman
Serious? I don't remember any major problems.
Quote Posted by henke
What are you talking about SD? Special effects or sound effects? Because if it's the special effects you're calling sloppy you are mad.
I wasn't the only one who noticed the lame CGI:
Quote Posted by Roger Ebert
The film looks muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days. This darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game)
It wasn't just the CGI though, the film is legendary for its gaffes. People wearing jeans, clearly visible gas canisters in chariots, obviously rubber helmets... you could turn Spot the Gladiator Gaffe into a drinking game, but you'd be wasted by the second reel.
Muzman on 19/5/2010 at 11:34
Sounds like Ebert saw it at a cinema where the bulb in the projector was going. Some of the big wide shots are a bit shiny. They look like something out of Total War these days. And the tiger compositing isn't great. But anyone who thinks it's average or bad for the era hasn't seen The Mummy Returns for a while.
The rest of the stuff isn't at all unusual for a film of this type. It hardly qualifies as legendary. Braveheart has a similar list, for instance.
Anyway, it's probably the definition of overrrated, but I still find it a very watchable bit of fun if you ignore all that.
Thirith on 19/5/2010 at 11:36
Quote Posted by Muzman
Anyway, it's probably the definition of overrrated, but I still find it a very watchable bit of fun if you ignore all that.
I find Ridley Scott's more epic films somewhat leaden, but I am still surprised at how much I enjoyed the Director's Cut of
Kingdom of Heavens. In spite of Orloomo Bland, I found that one engaging and gorgeous to watch. (Okay, Eva Green makes almost anything gorgeous to watch.)
nicked on 19/5/2010 at 12:25
I keep hearing good things about Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut. As someone (one of the few apparently) who quite enjoyed the theatrical version, I imagine I'm in for a bit of a treat.
Also - spot on about the Mummy Returns. I remember watching the Visual effects documentary on the DVD at the time and thinking that it didn't look that good. Watched it again recently and some bits are cringingly bad.
But I think the award for worst CGI scene in a big-budget film may have to go to the terrible surfing bit in Die Another Day.
Chimpy Chompy on 19/5/2010 at 12:46
I have a lot of love for Kingdom of Heaven. Orlando is pretty unconvincing, agreed, but the rest is epic enough that I can forgive him standing there frowning slightly as if he's trying to remember if he fed the cat.
Quote Posted by SD
you could turn Spot the Gladiator Gaffe into a drinking game, but you'd be wasted by the second reel.
Also you'd be a horrid nerd and no-one would want to watch movies with you.
Muzman on 19/5/2010 at 13:15
Kingdom of Heaven DC is truly friggen spectacular, I must say. If they made a print of it for cinema now I'd probably go watch it. It is kinda frustrating how much Bloom lets it down. A stronger lead would make it an all time great. It's not so bad for most of the running time as he's working off a lot of really interesting actors, but they all gradually die or are sidelined by the time the most important stretch of the film comes along and it becomes really obvious that he's nothing by himself.
Still a true epic though. Even people who didn't like the original cut should still check it out. At, I think, half an hour longer it's almost a different film.
Chimpy Chompy on 19/5/2010 at 13:38
I like the subversion of expectations, in that we're presented with a Fellowship Of Warriors for Balian to join, then most of them are killed off by the end of the first act well before the real conflicts happen. Otherwise though I agree, the supporting actors are needed to make up for Bloom's wooden nature. Especially the King and that enigmatic Hospitalier guy.
demagogue on 19/5/2010 at 16:28
I personally like mud tones on the drab end of the palette.
I liked that part of Gladiator's aesthetic.
I remember thinking the prototypical Russell Crowe character is the principled thug or muscle, the model set already back in Romper Stomper ... Gladiator, LA Confidential, Robin Hood, even The Insider had that aspect about him, principled to a fault and letting the world coming down to make his point.
