I just saw the previews for this (off 'Game 6') and I could not believe how cheap the special effects looked. I understand low budgets, but if you have a low budget, don't put together a film that heavily depends on special effects!!!
LMAO @ these insects and what looks like a horrible acted movie.
I just saw the preview on the Game 6 dvd as well.
I couldn't believe it.
I seriously didn't know what to say, but then I just started laughing so hard.
This was on a couple of night ago, and like an idiot I watched it. I'd seen it years ago, and I decided to watch it again. The effects looked like somebody was holding up a piece of paper. This is really a waste of time watching this. I don't think they had a low budget, I don't think they had a budget at all!!! Don't waste your time watching this movie. You will regret it!!
http://www.ebates.com/rf.do?id=30228525
And yet you watched it again.... ;-)
LOL! I just had to watch it!
http://www.ebates.com/rf.do?id=30228525
I woke up screaming and then I understood great compassion and peed all over the floor!
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
Despite the heaving endowment of Samantha Mcleod, the film would've done better with audiences and critics if traditional effects were used. When budget films use effects, they're usually better off going with prosthetics and miniatures, as the animator doesn't have to worry about lighting and composisting, where as all of this has to done on the computer with CGI, which only looks good on the very highest budget (War of the Worlds, Iron Man).
Look at Peter Jackson's early efforts or Roger Corman films. Despite them being decades older, the effects are more believable than a 2D sprite, plus you'd be able to see actors and creatures actually interact properly on the same frame, even if they are rubber puppets. They share the same physical world and are lit consistently, with cause and effect that appears more natural. Even the Phantom Menace fails to get this right; check out Ewan McGregor's eyeline when he meets Jar-Jar for the first time. It looks awful.
Frogs! 1972 is far more entertaining than this. Real actors, bigger budget, better fx. What an insult to Frogs.
As for the fx, I met the director once--came across as a neurotic jerk but he did say it was a mistake to do the fx himself.
Live and learn.