Master Virgo wrote:So apparently even Nolanfans can agree that a 3D film shot digitally with tons of CGI work is not necessarily an evil thing.£



NFometer: 99%
Based on the Ratings of 46 Members
Average Score: 8.9/10



Positive:


11072014 (10/10)
BroskiSabor (10/10)
Rohan (10/10)
cooldude (10/10)
griefball (10/10)
xWhereAmI? (10/10)
skyab23 (10/10)
Pratham (10/10)
oracle86 (10/10)
m4st4 (10/10)
Law (10/10)
anarchy (10/10)
anonymity (10/10)
FreakLikeMe (10/10)
Red Hood (9.5/10)
o SHAKESPEARE o (9.5/10)
Anepicmoviereviewer (9.5/10)
Dodd (9.4/10)
Durden (9.3/10)
JohnConstantin (9/10)
Prince0Awesome (9/10)
Cilogy (9/10)
-ArmouredTitan- (9/10)
Asanty (9/10)
shauner111 (9/10)
DreamPolice (9/10)
BlairCo (9/10)
DoubleD (9/10)
Bacon (8.5/10)
MiracleSleeper2 (8.5/10)
Solo (8/10)
Eric (7.5/10)
Braked (?/10)
TalkOnCorners (?/10)
nolannolanchrischris (?/10)
JediSunScreen (?/10)
TheSpecialOne (?/10)
Vader (?/10)
CrazyEight (?/10)
Silverheart (?/10)
RIFA (?/10)
Dream-Xtractor (?/10)
Eromero (?/10)
ArmandFancyPants (?/10)
Teddy (?/10)



Mixed:


Sandy (6.9/10)


£

Put me at a 9/10

ouch

Bacon wrote:

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:8/10 A beautifully crafted amusement park ride.

Agreed.

And I like how my rating was left out of the NF Meter.

Way to go Tull/Legendary. Have fun financing bombs at Universal.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/gravity-re ... 58379.html

Had some corny-ass dialogue tho.

And the CGI is gonna feel dated in a few years but there's not much one can do about that. Like the actual artistry behind it was great which is ultimately what matters, but I was always aware it was actors imposed over a CG backdrop.

DKnight007 wrote:

Bacon wrote:

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:8/10 A beautifully crafted amusement park ride.

Agreed.

And I like how my rating was left out of the NF Meter.

Way to go Tull/Legendary. Have fun financing bombs at Universal.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/gravity-re ... 58379.html

Should go back to your cave troll. Movie could have easily been a bomb too, nobody saw this coming, it connects with audiences on a special level, and that's a good thing, but being cocky and berating Legendary because they decided not to back this up, is plain silly.

Tull is the man, thx to whom, Del Toro could make Pacific Rim, when it seemed like a pipe dream. Legendary is also behind Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Town (which was a hit too), Man Of Steel, The Hangover trilogy, Inception, 42, etc, all being hits. They have far more hits than bombs.

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Had some corny-ass dialogue tho.

And the CGI is gonna feel dated in a few years but there's not much one can do about that. Like the actual artistry behind it was great which is ultimately what matters, but I was always aware it was actors imposed over a CG backdrop.

I wouldn't say that. Films made ten years ago still impress today.

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Had some corny-ass dialogue tho.

And the CGI is gonna feel dated in a few years but there's not much one can do about that. Like the actual artistry behind it was great which is ultimately what matters, but I was always aware it was actors imposed over a CG backdrop.

yeah it was pretty on the nose on a lot of the stuff but the experience is amazing

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Had some corny-ass dialogue tho.

And the CGI is gonna feel dated in a few years but there's not much one can do about that. Like the actual artistry behind it was great which is ultimately what matters, but I was always aware it was actors imposed over a CG backdrop.

I don't think so.

And while watching it two times, it never crossed my mind (le: actually it was at one time, see spoilers) I was watching a CG movie. It didn't feel like a CGI movie.

The only time I felt it was CGI was when

well as cgi improves we'll be able to look back on today's films with a more perceptive eye, in the same way effects from any other period feel dated to us.

but yeah for 2013 standards they're pretty damn impressive.