Sunday, August 20, 2006

Acting or CGI?

what is more sought after by movie goers? CGI or acting?
its a question i've been pondering lately. Most of the new action films of the past few years has had amazing special effect sequences which i think has gone past the acting as the most salient image when watching a film. The matrix is a good example. although i could not stand Keanu Reeve's 2D acting i am still a massive fan of the film, and although the characters comes up with the most cliched things to say, i was still very satisfied just by watching the awesome fight scenes cheographed by CGI.
I guess CGI works well with films like the matrix is that it complements things like story line and characterisation.
what do you guys think? is there any movie where the acting is so terrible that no matter how good a story line there is or how much special effects is used, it is still a crap film to watch?

1 Comments:

Blogger Emily said...

I actually fell asleep in the cinema during one of the action-scenes of the second one...

I sort of think that bad acting and bad storylines are connected, and that it's difficult to save one by depending on the other.

Some films you go see for the CGI-effects, some for the acting and some for both. I think most films fall under the mixed category though, because you hardly get a film these days without some sort of special-effects (even though you don't necessarily think of them as special effects).

7:30 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home