SFX man!
Has it been three weeks already? Wow, time flies when you're doing absolutely nothing.
Anyway, time for a post, I'd say - and while I'm at it, why not make it an excrutiatingly dull one? Because hey, who needs excitement, huh?
Not me.
Here's the deal. I'm a bit of a film buff; I like basically everything, from the huge summer blockbusters, to the smaller indie films. Everything has its appeal, as long as it contains some good ideas, and at least an ounce of originality.
Usually it's the indie films that are the better films, simply because they do not depend on big action set pieces, explosions, and special effects; instead, they rely on plot, story, acting, cinematography, etc. But every once and again, there's this need for a supersized dose of escapism, and that's where the blockbusters come into play. And the special effects.
Now, I'm all for seeing dinosaurs roam free again in Jurassic Park, or seeing the White House being blown to bits in Independence Day, but for me, personally, it's the (virtually (no pun intended)) invisible effects that fill me with awe.
Take for example Forrest Gump. Who knew that, when this film was released in '94, it was the most effects heavy film to date, and it was released a year after Jurassic Park. There's Lt. Dan's legs (or lack thereof), the ping pong match, Forrest meeting the world leaders, hell, even Forrest running was a special effect.
Another, more recent example, is Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, which contains one of the single best special effects I have ever seen, and the irony of it is that 75%* of the audience are likely to have missed it. I'm talking about the 3 minute tracking shot, as Tom Cruise and his two kids are fleeing the city in the only available car. The camera swerves freely around the car, and at some points even enters the car through the wind shield, without the scene ever cutting away. Very, very eloquently done.
The latest example I stumbled across was when I recently went to see the latest installment in the X-men franchise. The film was nothing special - in fact, it was quite boring, and particularly tedious in several spots (the entire Jean Grey/ Dark Phoenix (sub)plot was wasted). That said, the film started with a brilliant special effect. Upon seeing it, I thought to myself, 'Wow, that's some wicked make up on display there', but as the scene progressed, I realised that it wasn't make up, it was an elaborate and nigh on invisible special effect. Instead of telling you what I'm talking about, I'll show you:
Look here and here for Patrick Stewart old and young, respectively.
Now that is some top notch digital trickery, no?
So, you ask, after all this - is there a point to this post?
No. There isn't.
Cheers
* This figure is based on no scientific facts whatsoever - it exists in a scientific void, a factual vacuum, if you will. In other words, it's a guess.
Anyway, time for a post, I'd say - and while I'm at it, why not make it an excrutiatingly dull one? Because hey, who needs excitement, huh?
Not me.
Here's the deal. I'm a bit of a film buff; I like basically everything, from the huge summer blockbusters, to the smaller indie films. Everything has its appeal, as long as it contains some good ideas, and at least an ounce of originality.
Usually it's the indie films that are the better films, simply because they do not depend on big action set pieces, explosions, and special effects; instead, they rely on plot, story, acting, cinematography, etc. But every once and again, there's this need for a supersized dose of escapism, and that's where the blockbusters come into play. And the special effects.
Now, I'm all for seeing dinosaurs roam free again in Jurassic Park, or seeing the White House being blown to bits in Independence Day, but for me, personally, it's the (virtually (no pun intended)) invisible effects that fill me with awe.
Take for example Forrest Gump. Who knew that, when this film was released in '94, it was the most effects heavy film to date, and it was released a year after Jurassic Park. There's Lt. Dan's legs (or lack thereof), the ping pong match, Forrest meeting the world leaders, hell, even Forrest running was a special effect.
Another, more recent example, is Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, which contains one of the single best special effects I have ever seen, and the irony of it is that 75%* of the audience are likely to have missed it. I'm talking about the 3 minute tracking shot, as Tom Cruise and his two kids are fleeing the city in the only available car. The camera swerves freely around the car, and at some points even enters the car through the wind shield, without the scene ever cutting away. Very, very eloquently done.
The latest example I stumbled across was when I recently went to see the latest installment in the X-men franchise. The film was nothing special - in fact, it was quite boring, and particularly tedious in several spots (the entire Jean Grey/ Dark Phoenix (sub)plot was wasted). That said, the film started with a brilliant special effect. Upon seeing it, I thought to myself, 'Wow, that's some wicked make up on display there', but as the scene progressed, I realised that it wasn't make up, it was an elaborate and nigh on invisible special effect. Instead of telling you what I'm talking about, I'll show you:
Look here and here for Patrick Stewart old and young, respectively.
Now that is some top notch digital trickery, no?
So, you ask, after all this - is there a point to this post?
No. There isn't.
Cheers
* This figure is based on no scientific facts whatsoever - it exists in a scientific void, a factual vacuum, if you will. In other words, it's a guess.
3 Comments:
Did you choke on furball again?
Cool, dude! I love those kinds of FX too.
Have you seen Requiem for a Dream? if you have, and can stomach sitting through it again, I can highly recommend the director's commentary for pointing out a whole heap of FX you wouldn't know was there.
Same with The Others - a movie filled to the brim with FX, despite appearing to be a totally FX-less movie. Not one of my favourite films but interesting.
I've seen Requiem. In fact, it's one of my favourite films. And no, I hadn't realised that it was an SFX-heavy flick, though, considering that it's Aronofsy, who's always been on the cutting edge, it doesn't really surprise me. I'll watch it again, soon.
Thanks for the heads up.
Cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home