Sentences with phrase «cgi looks»

The CGI looks predictably great; I just hope there's a story to hang all of the big spectacle on.

So far response to the trailers hasn't been particularly positive with people complaining that the CGI looks, well, cheap and obtrusive.

The world and CGI looks amazing.

It also doesn't help that the CGI looks decidedly cheap.

The CGI looks incredible.

The wolf CGI looks OK fur wise but then you see their faces and mainly the eyes and it all falls apart.

The actors» performances were uninspired, the CGI looked like it was created twenty years ago, and the plot was weak.

Even though some of the CGI looked a little cheesy, overall the 1080p transfer packed that certain 300» style feel but more on a direct - to - video standard.

It's not as dated as the original trilogy nor as CGI looking as the prequels.

When the pixies are in their small from, the CGI looked totally fake.

There you'll find the option to adjust and / or turn off the feature and, in the process, get rid of that uncanny plastic CGI look that the ultra-smoothing imparts to 24 fps broadcasts.

Not exact matches

«We looked across the country and thought about the places that we could launch, and we loved the CGI model and their notion of making commitments to act,» says NCEI's chief executive Laurie Westley.

It's easy to understand why Musk himself laughed about Roadster looking very much like CGI.

But beyond CGI - voyages on the «Ship of the Imagination» through the far reaches of the galaxy, Tyson looks at the history of science, its intersections with faith and its impact on culture.

Was the Wilson who looked like a first round pick just an example of Petrino CGI?

With the look of a big - budget movie, Falling Skies offers up - close views of CGI extraterrestrials who are kidnapping human children for reasons unknown — but presumably nefarious.

Paul will always be the man who helped define the CGI on Jurassic Park, changing the look and feel of dinosaurs for a generation.

Mark Brooks: CGI / Think is looking for more marketing / online dating acquisitions.

An exciting sequence at the Wizarding Bank Gringotts soon kicks off the action, with the inclusion of an extremely impressive looking CGI dragon.

Its all hands on makeup and effects which looks better than cgi anyday but this film cries out for just a touch more skill.

(Only in years to come will we look back on the entertainments of this decade and be shocked at how grimly colorless they were, trapped in a hue - killing triple - headlock of CGI, 3 - D, and poor projection practices.

At least it looked real and not like a series of obvious CGIs (think Transformers 2).

The Van Dammes and Willises and Schwarzeneggers put up their dukes in the»80s and»90s, but in the 21st century robots and other CGI mammoths mostly fight our battles for us — and the LaBeoufs mostly cheer and look on.

Wow, this movie is awful, I mean the CGI is the worse I have seen this year, (although I, Frankenstein might beat this movie), the acting is horrible, Kellan Lutz is so bland, he makes fellow Twilight star look like Marlon Brando in comparison, the love interest is just as bland, then the

The mix of animatronics and CGI is practically flawless, and often I wasn't sure which of the two I was looking at.

The look and movement of the monsters is pretty basic, with one new wrinkle — effects artists conspire to give the gorilla an unprecedented CGI movie skill: When someone gets on his nerves, he flips them the bird.

Alice Through the Looking Glass doesn't clear the CGI cobwebs or successfully anchor any of its new events with emotional heft.

The film is loaded with dodgy CGI (Wolvie's early bone claws look particularly bad, as does the de-aging makeup on a surprise cameo near the end), is poorly lit, and the production design seems incredibly rinky - dink for a huge summertime blockbuster - especially compared to last year's lavish IRON MAN.

Sure, some of the action scenes might have looked even better with stunt people instead of CGI fighters, but the wonderful production design more than makes up for it.

For an additional preview look at how all the films have been newly tweaked for this Blu - ray release, including aspect ratio framing, color corrections, soundtrack enhancement and the replacement of the «Muppet Yoda» with an all - CGI version in the Phantom Menace, check out the report from Slash Film.

There is of course some CGI present throughout which tends to swing from being reasonable (looking back now), to a bit hokey in places, bit plastic looking.

Normally when I watch a movie, I never let CGI affect how I feel about a scene as a whole, but there were some noticeably cheap - looking effects here.

Director Michael Dougherty does for Christmas what he did for Halloween in «Trick r Treat» in this comic shocker that Entertainment Weekly called «a great - looking movie, filled with freaky creature designs and a just - right mixture of practical effects and CGI.»

All the effects / stunts look great and don't look seem to use too much CGI, bluescreen is evident and obvious but its not that bad.

The film contains the same tacked - on humor, lame CGI that looks like it was from a 20 year old Pixar film, and characters that could not be more one - dimensional if the screenwriters tried.

The film contains the same tacked - on humor, lame CGI that looks like it was from a 20 year old Pixar film, and characters that could not be more one - dimensional if the

Full credit to director Michael Dougherty (Trick «r Treat) because this is great - looking movie, filled with freaky creature designs and a just - right mixture of practical effects and CGI.

Effects are standard CGI fare and nothing special but the flashback sequence to Caviezel's home world is a nice looking animation.

This was easily one of the worst offenders for bad CGI and obvious greenscreen, it looked fake as fuck.

Shots of the moon, moving vehicles, the lunar surface and of course Little America just look average and obviously CGI.

Adding to the confusion are a few scattered CGI effects that can be detected with very little difficulty and some fairly erratic cinematography that includes headache - inducing handheld shots and scenes that are so poorly lit that it looks as if the sets were illuminated with a 40 - watt light bulb.

While the 1963 film used sound and psychological suggestion to promote a feeling of terror, the newer version quickly abandons this in favor of an all - out CGI - effects-fest that, instead of being scary, look pretty cheesy and silly instead.

The body movement of the characters in wolf mode is also impressively done with live action stunts and wire work I'm guessing, didn't look like CGI.

Between the CGI baby and continuing the the terrible storyline from part 1 it looked like it was headed for a 0 or 1.

But if it may not sound quite right, the production certainly looks splendid, with the natural live - action backdrops (filmed in England's Lake District as well as in Sydney, Australia) doing idyllic justice to Potter's world, while the CGI hits impressively photorealistic fresh heights — right down to the rabbit fur that oscillates convincingly in those gentle country breezes.

If you're looking for epic CGI action there is plenty, but if you're looking for more than that, see Man of Steel.

Emma Watson, Luke Evans and Dan Stevens do exactly what you expect them to do with lots of CGI and flowery movie sets, in this very familiar looking 2017 Beauty & The Beast directed by Bill «Kinsey» Condon.

Still, the animation is impressive, an appealing mix of standard cartoon and CGI that blends well and gives Sinbad a unique look.

The excessive use of CGI and the unnecessary 3D is off putting and the overall look of the film is drab.

Bright promises a unique blend of sci - fi, action, and CGI effects, so if you're looking for a fun way to kill an hour and a half, this fantastical tale is the movie for you.