Computer Review
July 12, 2001 9:44 AM   Subscribe

Computer Review While Final Fantasy is the first movie to have only computer generated actors, it's gotten few good reviews. All Things Considered, found a reviewer who wholeheartedly liked it: their Mac G3. Listen with RealAudio: 14.4 or 28.8 (via Macintouch)
posted by andrewraff (24 comments total)
first movie to have only computer generated actors

Huh? Isn't this just another computer animated movie like Toy Story or Shrek? Higher quality, perhaps, but hardly the first movie with computer generated actors.
posted by straight at 9:50 AM on July 12, 2001

Maybe the point was: it's the first movie that depicts realistic-looking computer-generated humans...
Don't know if there are other computer-generated feature-length films that have approached FF's degree of anatomical realism.
posted by kahboom at 9:56 AM on July 12, 2001

Um, yeah, kahboom got what I meant. FF is the first to generate "realistic" humans via computer animation... Toy Story and Shrek are both computer animated films, but not meant to look like people....
posted by andrewraff at 10:02 AM on July 12, 2001

I thought it was wonderful. Very high wow factor... Hair is still an issue but some of the skin textures, with pores, are stunning marvelous. Though Donald Sutherland is the voice of Dr. Sid and I kept expecting him to sell me a Volvo.
posted by heather at 10:16 AM on July 12, 2001

i stopped listening to reviewers and critics the day i realized that anyone who criticises more than they create is a worthless fool.
posted by Satapher at 10:21 AM on July 12, 2001

I don't like critics much either, but one could argue that criticism is a form of creation - I think.
posted by owillis at 10:23 AM on July 12, 2001

So wait.. is criticizing critics ok?
posted by zempf at 10:27 AM on July 12, 2001

I think owillis created a criticism of criticizing critics.
posted by transient at 10:36 AM on July 12, 2001

I heard that they spent 1/5 of the animation time just doing her hair. And yes, it WAS amazing. The entire movie was just beautiful. You could watch it with no sound and still be thoroughly entertained.
posted by fusinski at 11:40 AM on July 12, 2001

Ebert and Roeper both liked it. Of course, you expect that from Ebert.
posted by kindall at 11:55 AM on July 12, 2001

I just want to say that this movie is a monumental breakthrough in film-making no matter what any of the critics want to say about the "plot" or "story."

I saw it last-night and throughout the entire film just kept thinking about how awesome it was to look at. I need to see it again and pay attention to the story more I guess. Although, the story seemed very much like the story of Final Fantasy 9 game- or at least it had the same themes.

However, I get irritated when reviewers keep saying it is based on a video game - it is not (and comparing it to Tomb Raider is just uncalled for). The movie is completely separate from any of the games - it was created by the same people and is true to the spirit of the games, but there are no other connections - except that one of the characters is named Sid, and in the games there is always a character of that name somewhere.

I can't wait for the DVD. Or the next Final Fantasy movie or game.

It will be a shame if this movie doesn't get the credit it deserves for its brilliant vision and technological achievement. So far, I have heard mainly people nit-picking at the graphics and plot.

The movie is very much out of the Japanimation tradition - and I think that is why mainstream audiences are rejecting the plot and style somewhat.

Go see it and enjoy the first ever photo-realistic fantasy world on film.
posted by daser at 12:02 PM on July 12, 2001

To Criticize the Critic, T.S. Eliot.

Thar ye be, matey.
posted by J. R. Hughto at 12:08 PM on July 12, 2001

one could argue that criticism is a form of creation - I think.

There is that saying about how no one has ever erected a statue of a critic.
posted by gyc at 1:01 PM on July 12, 2001

Doesn't Eliot have a statue? At the very least, he has several plaques spread around...
posted by J. R. Hughto at 1:08 PM on July 12, 2001

I can't wait for the ... next Final Fantasy movie or game.

I've never understood how their could be a "next" Final Fantasy game in any case. When you make the frist one, you've kind of limited yourself to only making one by calling it "final."
posted by kindall at 1:35 PM on July 12, 2001

Only if the progression of fantasies is linear.

i guess.

The Final Fantasy series is not a series like Star Wars, where there is Episode 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.

The Final Fantasy titles exist independent from one another. Before this movie, none had any specific setting in time or space. That was the one thing about the movie that went against the series, as it was set on Earth in the future.
posted by daser at 1:48 PM on July 12, 2001

The plot took me completely by surprise (I was expecting "another bug hunt" and it ended up being something quite original) and the visuals, naturally, we very nicely executed.

(Throughout the movie, I kept goggling at the vehicle and interface designs. Every object seemed to have a comfortable, usable nature -- somebody did some serious design work.)
posted by Kikkoman at 2:38 PM on July 12, 2001

No kidding- there was a LOT of effort and thought put into this (duh!) from all angles, besides just looking almost photorealistic. And while the plot wasn't perfect, I'm a sucker for that quasi-mystical angle and liked the film on this front as well...
posted by hincandenza at 5:46 PM on July 12, 2001

I've never understood how their could be a "next" Final Fantasy game in any case. When you make the frist one, you've kind of limited yourself to only making one by calling it "final."

The Title is not a literal thing. It's just a title. I could argue that AI is not really about AI.

I've been waiting for Final Fantasy to come out for four years and I was very happy with the film. I was surprised that the plot and dialogue were not much worse. I never accused Square of being a anything other then a source of great art.
posted by john at 6:29 PM on July 12, 2001

It's just a title.

Silly me, expecting titles to have more than alliteration. %)
posted by kindall at 7:30 PM on July 12, 2001

At this point most of the good titles have been taken. I think wrong expectations are something that can rob a person's enjoyment of things. I don't go to a Jackie Chan film for plot, dialogue, or emotional impact unless you count humor.
posted by john at 8:03 PM on July 12, 2001

I thought it was an awesome movie! The animation and design was superb, and the attention to detail was unparalleled with anything I've seen before. I was kind of expecting it to follow somewhat along the same vein as the games though, so that was a little disappointing. I like classic hero-story archetypes, so the ending was... wait, don't wanna ruin it for anybody...
posted by prototype_octavius at 5:31 AM on July 13, 2001

But what did David Manning have to say about it? I won't see any film that doesn't get his rave review ;-)
posted by briank at 7:24 AM on July 13, 2001

Saw it last night. A very pretty, but very stupid movie. There was lots of giggling in the theater at the long exposition scenes (so many of them) and hocus-pocus dialogue. Gaia was mentioned with the earnest only a cartoon character could muster, and the more we heard about the protagnist’s theory — consisting of spirit waves, implanted breast plates, meteors cum undead Noah’s Ark — around it, the sillier it sounded. The theory, the bad guy (“His desire to destroy destroyed him too.”), and the cardboard lovestory all ended with a non-sequitor denounment of an eagle soaring over craggy peaks serenaded by soft jazz.

I can’t believe I skipped Sexy Beast — which is apparently gunning for second best movie of the year — for a flick in which the actors lips don’t follow the dialogue. Apparently, I’m asking for too much.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:03 PM on July 13, 2001

« Older   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments