MovieChat Forums > Vamps (2012) Discussion > The Special Effects broke my heart

The Special Effects broke my heart


And my eyes. Good lord in 2012...they were awful! When Sigourney got her head lopped off and then the skeleton scene...gah no! Bleach!


http://twitter.com/#!/TilderAsgrave
http://flamingpurdies.blogspot.com/

reply

Oh God yes. The worst was when Ritter was crawling down the wall and mouths "call me" to her boyfriend. Yikes. I've honestly seen more convincing SFX in films from the 70's...

reply

I don't think you guys get it. Its supposed to look the way they did things back in the olden days of cinema. Remember all the references and intercut scenes of the old silent movies and such. The bodies look stop motion and the heads were stuck on with CGI.




reply

if it was intentional, which i can believe, it was a very foolish choice, because it detracts from the film. not that the film was doing great to beign with, but really, it couldn't afford the negative points for jarringly bad sfx, even if it was intentional

reply

I agree. But all the special effects were crap. Even when their mouths opened wide it looks rubbish. But a 16 milion dollar budget??? Come off it. I honestly could have done better in adobe after effets. Just saying :-)

reply

I thought it added rather than retracted lol. I thought it was pretty hilarious how bad the CGI was! I agree with you that it was an intentional thing.

-----
"I'm worth twelve of you, Malfoy" - Neville Longbottom

reply

Yea and it was really funny when Kristen Ritters body was clearly stop motion runnung down the wall (and that part was taken straight out of Dracula) then she turns her head and does the call me thing. That really made me laugh it was so meant to look that way and if people didn't get it they should see more Vampire things then rewatch this movie.









reply

I too thought they added to the film! The cheesy effects were great, I wouldn't have it any other way for this particular movie.

reply

Oh, I got it! It was a terrible film with terrible effects. Was the writing intentionally bad, too, as some kind of allusive technique? Was the acting woeful as a callback to bad acting of the past? Don't try to justify this turd, it is worth no one's time.

reply

Yeah the effects in the movie were pretty bad. Heck this whole movie was bad.

Gimbos The Name & Horror Is My Thing!

reply

so the name Vamps or the trailer didn't tell you this was going to be an 80's B movie tribute?

i think some of you in this thread have the wrong impression what this movie was suppose to be parodying. i'm amazed when you still don't realize it after that jacket with the huge shoulderpads on Ritter was shown on screen.


--anti-dubber.

reply

Thank you

reply

I think the bad effects were intentional.

MovieKid100's mom is a prostitute. One Direction sucks. You're Next failed. What else is new?

reply

Some of the CGI was not too good, whilst other special effects looked to have paid homage to Ray Harryhausen.


Its that man again!!

reply

Sweet and loving story in the movie, but yes, the CGI could had been done better.
But perhaps they where on a tight budget, that did not allow anything better.

reply

Some of the worst special effects I have ever seen. Painfully bad. I have seen better effects on TV.

reply

That some what cheesy effects help the movie

reply