Turban-O-Matic

Amazing new technology teaches lazy Sikh kids to tie turbans correctly.

Bout time.

The Best of 2005 - Visual Effects

War of the Worlds

David Blitstein, Gintar Repecka, Alan Scott and Daniel Sudick

War of the Worlds was a terrible movie. It was absolutely horrible, poorly conceived and terribly executed.

With regards to story.

Visually, it was a real treat. If there’s one thing the film succeeded in doing, it was in conveying the enormity and reality of these alien tripods in relation to their human prey. While I would have liked to have given this award to Star Wars, the fact of the matter is that War of the Worlds succeeded in conveying computer imagery that appeared realistic, threatening and plausible. One brilliant stroke has to be their keeping the alien craft enshrouded in fog, darkness and trees for most of the film. As a result, the inadequacy of the computer imagery was negligible…instead, one couldn’t help but be overwhelmed and frightened by the very big, very real machines stalking our heroes through the night.
What’s also interesting is Spielberg’s use of these effects and computer visuals in relation to his ornate and fluid camera movements. Instead of being burdened by them, he allows them to free up his camerawork even further. One fancy shot had Spielberg looking at a horrific scene of violence through the viewfinder of a consumer digital camera. Other shots had him spinning and panning around a moving van in a fashion that would be either extremely expensive or near impossible to achieve with a camera car.
Letting his digital creations slip into the night, he presented imagery that seemed solid, concrete, real. And because of that, it was much more frightening. You may not feel the emotion between Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning. But when that tripod set its foot down right in front of her, my heart skipped a beat. I wasn’t thinking of how great the digital effects looked. I wasn’t awestruck by the visuals. I was terrified. And that’s when I knew the effects worked.

The Best of 2005 - Makeup

Revenge of the Sith

Nikki Gooley, Charmaine Fuller and Colin Ware

If there is one nomination I completely understood at the Academy Awards, it was Star Wars Episode III, Revenge of the Sith’s nomination for makeup. Did it deserve more nominations? I tend to think that’s up to you personally to decide. Did it deserve the makeup nomination? Absolutely.
The makeup in Revenge of the Sith was outlandish and unrealistic. And that’s why it was so great. Palpatine’s utterly melted, reptilian appearance post lighting must have taken a tremendous amount of time to apply. And it looks utterly repulsive, right down to the little details such as the crevices in his face, or the pallid skin-tone. The tremendous bags under his eyes might as well be canyons, and the fine wisps of hair on his head practically seem to go transparent against his wrinkled scalp. It’s a stunning and unappealing visual.
On the flip side we have Anakin, who ends up looking very dark and disturbed when he finally turns to the dark side. His eyes don’t quite have the bags that Palpatine’s does, but they do appear deeply set. You could argue that Hayden Christensen’s acting fails to convey the troubled emotion Anakin is experiencing at this point in his life. But I found myself hard-pressed to understand why he failed to relate those emotions…the makeup makes him look so troubled that the rest should have come naturally. Even the tiny scars on his face hint at battles he’s been through but that we haven’t been privy to see.
The extreme on Sith’s fantastic makeup is of course Anakin’s final transformation: a charred corpse. It is said that this contributed to the film’s PG-13 rating. I find that easy to see, as he looks absolutely horrid, like burnt chicken on the barbecue. And that’s a beautiful thing.