Nick Schuler of Moultrie News says:
"I didn't care much for Skyline. It was by all means a bad movie. It hinged its entire existence on the idea that a movie can justify itself by the merits of its special effects alone, which simply isn't true. It's a movie with a great deal of pretension behind it, and the only thing worse than a pretentious movie is an unjustified one."
Testament The Story of Moses Review: The series depicts Moses' journey from an outcast and murderer to a prophet and liberator of the Hebrews. It interweaves docudrama and interviews, to present a more humanly image of the prophet.
Rest In Peace Review: A man in debt disappears. Years later, he considers reconnecting with his family, but his previous life takes him by surprise.
Nerd Reactor writes that a new international post has revealed the return of a fan-favorite Toho monster.
I'm not sure why this review makes this sound like a new revelation...it's a concept we've learned time and time again, since VFX were born.
In fact special effects hurt movies at times. The other aspects of a film are not given the effort that's needed.
i sure enjoy good special effects, they're fun to watch, but never have i seen a movie just for special effects, which is why i didn' enjoyed, Avatar, it ha nothing besides Special Effects.
I was looking forward to this movie, but im sure i wont see it anymore.
Good special effects??? This movie has anything, BUT good special effects. When I look at other movies like Tron, Avatar, etc... Those I think of as good CGI movies.
Simple fact ive been trying to hammer home for a while now. Transformers isn't the strongest script and the visuals are amazing, but it still got away with it for being decent story wise.
When making a movie you have to ask, if this film was released before the visuals were possible would it still be entertaining and watchable? In this case, not at all, in Avatars case why bother?