Underworld Evolution

[Jedi2016]

I thought the movie was okay. I had a gift card that day, so I paid only about two bucks for it. I prefer the original, but the sequel was a decent enough popcorn flick.

 

[WmAx]

I stayed awake for the entire movie, which is a good sign. It's a good pizza movie. The special effects were some of the most realistic I have seen in any movie. Very impressive from that aspect. I might give this movie a 5 on a scale of 10, overall.

-Chris

 

[j_garcia]

Odd, I thought the special effects in the opening scene in particular, were terrible.

 

[GlocksRock]

I liked the first one better, but Evolution was ok.

 

[WmAx]

Odd, I thought the special effects in the opening scene in particular, were terrible.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the opening scene, specifically. But overall, the effects looked very realistic in this movie; the best I have seen, overall. A perfect blend of real-action effects combined with CGI to 'polish' it. Usually, I can *easily* see the CGI artifacts in movies. This one, most effects were convincing in most scenes without obvious CGI artifacts.

-Chris

 

[j_garcia]

The hair and the movement is pretty well done, however the CG in this movie was far too obvious to me. The animation itself is good, it is the integration in the scene that isn't the best. Narnia is an example of well integrated CG, IMO. Still visible for the most part, but one of the better blends I've seen.

 

[WmAx]

The hair and the movement is pretty well done, however the CG in this movie was far too obvious. Narnia is an example of well integrated CG, IMO.

Which scenes and details were 'far too obvious'? The movie actually used very little CGI; except in distant or very fast moving scenes, and for 'polishing'. Nearly all of the monsters were make up(except for help in transformation or in distant/fast scenes) and even the helicopter scene near the end used very little CGI, except in the fastest moving sections, of course. The truck/cliff chase scene; the main CGI for example was the addition of wings and the removal of suspension wires from the stunt man they had suspended, pulling along side the truck as it was driven. Please point to specific times/scenes, as I'll be glad to go over them to review where they are obvious.

I agree Narnia was pretty good from what I noticed, but I did not pay that much attention to Narnia, as I was multi-tasking.

-Chris

 

[emorphien]

I don't have a big fancy TV, but my friend and I were both impressed with the visual quality of this movie on our standard definition TV (better than average detail & sharpness, that's for sure) and didn't really notice much or any CG, however perhaps on a better TV that would be more apparent.

It was fun, not as good as the original but for $5 on Black Friday it will compliment my superbit copy of the original nicely.

 

[j_garcia]

With the exception of a few scenes, pretty much any of the scenes where there was something other than a torso/head shot were CG. In particular, the CG "wolves" in the opening scene are very obviously added in. I didn't look at the credits, but both the CG and make-up look like Rick Baker's work. The wolves look like an evolution of the ones used in An American Werewolf in Paris - if they weren't, they were influenced by them. I like the fact that they actually used so much make up in this one, and it was pretty well done (I'm a Fangoria kid). I'm not knocking the effects in this flick, just saying I didn't feel they were among the best I've seen.

I guess CG is just becoming a little too prevalent, almost to the point where studios rely on it to make a movie. I mean, look at Spiderman - those movies might as well just have been 100% animated... Then compare that to Jackson's King Kong or even LOTR, the CG is also very well done in those in that, it doesn't disrupt my willful suspension of disbelief.

 

[emorphien]

The only thing that disrupted my willful suspension of disbelief during King Kong was it's excessive length and boring spots.

LOTR was better, although Jackson still needs a lesson on editing IMO.

 

[j_garcia]

Yes, Kong had other issues, but the CG was good. I would tend to agree with the editing comment. I didn't like how LOTR was rolled out, but it all made sense, movie wise, why he placed certain things the way he did once the whole thing was done. Doesn't flow like the books, but was OK overall in the end.

 

[Sheep]

If you have the EEs, watch the 20 hours of extra crap. They explain why they had the movies like that. The 2 towers would have been 5 hours long if they went by the books. They needed to put some of it in the third movie (sheelots[typo?] lair).

SheepStar

 

[j_garcia]

I did watch much of the extras (EEs) and know why they did it. There were numerous other changes as well, Shelob was just one thing they moved.

 

[Dolby CP-200]

I’ve decided to revisit (Underworld Evolution) tonight with a sound experiment. First of I need to recalibrate my ageing (SONY KX-27 PS1) she’s old but she’ll hold.

 

[Seth=L]

I’ve decided to revisit (Underworld Evolution) tonight with a sound experiment. First of I need to recalibrate my ageing (SONY KX-27 PS1) she’s old but she’ll hold.

You have to get a new television man, the one you have is probably on it's last leg.

 

[Dolby CP-200]

Yeah its all Kate’s fault, she’s sucking the tube dry!

 

[Dolby CP-200]

I could get credit card from my building society to purchase a 34” LCD, but you know I how feel about part my ole SONY CRT for LCD.

 

[WmAx]

I could get credit card from my building society to purchase a 34” LCD, but you know I how feel about part my ole SONY CRT for LCD.

From what I can perceive, one of the top tier plasmas(current generation Pioneer and Panasonic) is virtually as good in overall image quality as a top quality CRT. I held out for a long time, and I almost bought the current 34" Sony CRT HDTV, but I ended up with a current generation Panasonic 42" HDTV plasma. I compared it as best I could to a professional Trinitron FD computer monitor that I have, and the plasma(when adjusted and set up properly) was only a little worse when compared side by side. The differences virtually disappear without a direct side by side reference. As for LCD televisions, the best I have found so far is the current generation Sony Bravia XBR line. But from what I have observed in uncontrolled scenarios, it is not up to the image quality level of the top tier plasmas.

-Chris

 

[Dolby CP-200]

WmAx

Interesting read. I have noticed and I know this isn’t really the place to discuss this, which is why I have started a thread should I keep the SONY CRT or buy a new 34” LCD.

But sure the SONY KX-27 PS1 is showing sings of flaring of white text of anything that is white and casting a horizontal line that is visible when the brightness is set to level where it would be visible.

Also the gray scale as a slight tint of (red) but if only when brightness is set to a level where it would become visible. I did an adjustment a around late of last year which corrected the above, but it only lasted a few months.

Could be a dry joint or a component that needs serviceable replacement?

It still runs but like most electronics it needs servicing.

 

[WmAx]

WmAx


Also the gray scale as a slight tint of (red) but if only when brightness is set to a level where it would become visible. I did an adjustment a around late of last year which corrected the above, but it only lasted a few months.

Could be a dry joint or a component that needs serviceable replacement?

.

I am not a television technician. I can not answer this question.

-Chris