Continued...

I always found that in all the new films that are rated bad, mainly focus on special effects than the drama or time taken in making the film.

Most films get a great opening weekend, but seriously dissapoint people.
Some films are rated bad by the LACK of special effects, this is something that really dwells on my mind, Are people looking for special effects? Are they after narrative?

Harry Potter is a good example of this Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.
When I came to watch this the film focused more on the drama aspect of the book rather than the dramatic action it involves. This is more like a british film making style in my view.Although it was great narrative wise, it did not fully catch the eye of the public.

'This is the least involving of the series so far, with an unclear storyline and action set-pieces that fail to convey the excitement of the book. '
This is an extract from Rotten Tomatoes from a fan that clearly did not like the film. Some people did not like the fact that the film Lacked CGI, which I did not think was the point of this film.

People think a film without CGI for it's genre is not good, and because all of the films that come out of the cinema as blockbusters include big CGI and explosions, as an audience we now EXPECT them.

The Matrix is an example I believe uses CGI to help the Narrative, much like many Sci-Fi films. They use CGI in order to portray the narrative, and the matrix was one of the examples of films that uses a good mix of film styles, from wire fighting, to tricky camera work (the slow motion BULLET TIME shot is a fantastic example of this).

I believe that the sort of films that are made solely for impressing the audience with CGI should be shoved in the bin. I think that modern day effects are ruining film because they are shoddy, do not fit the narrative, and do not work alongside the narrative to deliver the story and energy of the film.