Special effects have come a long way in the last 20 years. And unfortunately, they\'ve also set us back. Computer-generated imagery (CGI) has been used in film for nearly two decades, but a string of poor films and cheesy effects has made CGI a four-letter word for many. Here\'s a list of the worst offenders.

Really funny article. Although at the bad cgi animals in movies part I expected to see the likes of The Exorcist: Beginning, the horrible horrible Hyenas in the movie along with the rest of the subpar special effects. I really wanted to like this movie... but only some of the scenes were believable.

You should stick to writing about computer hardware.

I read and liked your story. I saw all of the movies that were mentioned and i agree with you on the bad parts. I dont really own an expensive tv but I had always wondered if those movies looked better on high definition tv's.
the movie charlie and the chocolate factory has to show some hope and gain respect for cgi. it's really amazing and i can't spot hardly anything wrong in it.
Drew carey's green screen show (improv) was on comedy central for awhile.
The league of extraordinary gentlemen was good up until hyde had to fight the other (cgi) transformed guy after he drank too much of jekylls potion. the actor who played dr jekyll had to wear a suit and spend hours in makeup then fight a poor looking cgi character.
great reading the little known fact about Streisand's former hair stylist haha. I like going to the IMDB and reading about movie goofs and trivia.


*edited. i removed the part about the oompa loompa because it was just mean.

My favorite is still from "Along came a Spider." The movie overall is pretty decent (althought highly cliche') and has NO NEED for CGI, but they had to start it out with the corvette crash from hell?!?

Well as for C&TCF, I remember interviews with Johnny Depp & The Director, and both were impressed with the actual stages because almost everything was real, But yea Ive seen the movie with my daughter and it does have very good special effects.

IMHO, I don't think you can generate ANYTHING with fur to look realistic.

I thought I was the only one that thought that Spiderman shouldn't have been SO SGI'd. There were a few scenes were it wasn't completely necessary.

I'm a little surprised that Star Wars: Episode 3 didn't make the list. For the most part, the film's CGI's are excellent. However, the final scene between Obi Wan and Anakin, specifically when they're fighting in the lava, looked horrible. It was almost show stopping in my opinion.

Why isn't the new King Kong on anyone's list???!!!

They used too much motion blur when Ann was being whipped around for a full minute (and in other fast scenes) with such force that it would have killed her the first time she switched directions. With real film, the motion would look choppy. (Horrible use of filmwork too. 24fps can't track so much motion.) They even screwed up a blue-screen effect near the end, and you can see some of the color reflecting on the leading lady. I could probably name more, but being such a terrible movie, I try to forget as much of it as possible. Who could possibly believe a gorilla (even that size of one) could break a t-rex jaw by ripping it open. Even if he did accomplish that, why would the t-rex die?

Well as for C&TCF, I remember interviews with Johnny Depp & The Director, and both were impressed with the actual stages because almost everything was real, But yea Ive seen the movie with my daughter and it does have very good special effects.

IMHO, I don't think you can generate ANYTHING with fur to look realistic.

I thought I was the only one that thought that Spiderman shouldn't have been SO SGI'd. There were a few scenes were it wasn't completely necessary.

I disagree with you on the fur thing...Chronicles of Narnia: "the thing, another thing and the other thing" had a lot of CGI and, well, the lion looked a lot real.

PS - Garfield movies should have entered this article

Well, you'd have to add Episode 1 and 2 too...they all have lame parts (not only on effects unfortunately).

Because he mentioned he wouldn't include B-Movies on the article

I agree that the 3 starwars prequels should have been on the list. The only reason I can think of that they weren't is because they would have filled up nearly every category. I mean they did have some awesome effects, but there were so many terrible ones as well, especially in ep1.

I didn't mind the "puffy" Hulk at all. I do think the dogs were silly though.

A movie that stands out to me was "Lost in Space", that little whatever it was creature they added wasn't even coloured right for the scenes creating a horrible looking CGI character that made no sense at all. Now imho that was the WORST example of CGI I had seen in a long time.

The one CGI effect that actually almost made me cry in sadness was seeing what they did to Yoda ... I had fond memories of Yoda from Return of the Jedi and The Empire Strikes Back, and the marvelous job that made a puppet a belivable lively character. The old one couldn t fly and jump around everywhere, but the new one has no soul ...

Hmmmm I guess you have to put things in perspective. I have seen a lot of movies in my life with a lot of cheesy special effects. Now a days if things are not cutting edge and perfect and don't pass as the real deal they are written off as bad but (WHAT ABOUT THE STORY). I remember seeing the first star wars movie when it cam out in 76-77 not sure of the year but I was 11 and I thought that was the greatest movie ever. I felt that way about a lot of movies that I saw as a kid. Now when I look back at them you see the cheesy special effects but that did not matter because the story was good. Just like video games if they are good they are good graphics don't have to be the best. Now I watch a lot of these new disney and pixar animation movies with my daughter and a couple that I saw had great graphics but the stroy was not that good. "don't judge a book buy its cover"