Hate Transformers all you want, and I know plenty of you do. Even hate it's "ilk" as you perceive it. You cannot, however, lump JP in there! It's a magical adventure story and I can't think of one Spielberg-helmed movie in that category that falls flat because of reliance on CG/FX or lack of plot.

JP is a classic movie and I must defend it. End of.

+1

Well, fawn over JP as much as you want, but I haven't watched it for quite a while now and don't feel that I'll have any desire to watch it again any time soon.

And I don't hate the Transformers ilk, I just wish that some film-makers would not go in for OTT effects and lose sight of a good story.

Having had a quick scan of my DVD collection, some of my favourite films have nary a (noticeable) CGI special effect in sight- notably The Shawshank Redemption, A Few Good Men, Cannonball Run (well, I like it) Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Enemy At the Gateand many that have CGI still could have been done without- as in the days gone by when hundreds of extras would have been used and CGI has been used to avoid this time and expense while still looking realistic.

One of the finest films I've ever seen takes place almost entirely in one room and is B&W and without a special effect in sight apart from the thunderstorm outside. Twelve Angry Men.

I'm trying to think of a CGI effects laden film that would make my top 50. There might be a couple. I'll get back to you.

That's better! I can understand the sentimental attraction of Cannonball Run. With the exception of Enemy At The Gate (which is simply good IMO) every film you list there is superb. Twelve Angry Men is some next level storytelling and one of my all-greats.

I totally take your point about over-reliance, and I quite agree with you. I do however, feel there is room for movies that use FX and especially CGI as a plot device in and of themselves. Transformers wouldn't work without CGI, neither would JP. LOTR is another example of a superb set of movies that need GCI to work.

Many producers, writers and directors see CGI as a natural progression in the storytelling of movies. Do you think people lamented the passing of the book, when movies were first introduced? No, they still read them and choose to see each form for it's own merits.

Perhaps the key here is to recognise good movies from bad, whether CGId or not and simply view CG heavy movies as a relatively new genre standing apart from the "old" style. There is room for both providing the quality stays there, no? After all, there are probably just as many plotless or bad movies without CGI as with.....

A.[LIFTED] I. : Artificial [LIFTED] Intelligence

@ okenobi.

Sorry. when I referred to effects laden movies in general, I misled you a little, unintentionally. What I meant really was CGI used for CGI's sake and when the film started to turn into something that was all special effects and no story. As you say, Transformers could not have been made without CGI but my impression of the film was that it was all CGI and no story- a film for kids basically. As noted, I think that while JP was not a bad movie, it again relied on what are admittedly impressive CGI effects, but started to lose the plot as it went through the movie. Others may disagree with me, but I think that it got rather weak towards the end.

I often get really annoyed with films that get silly for the sake of it and that doesn't necessarily include CGI effects. The Blues Brothers is an amazing film, right up the final chase which IMHO gets just a tad (for "tad" read totally OTT) silly and I've already mentioned the jumping bus in Speed. It is things like this that just annoy me.

Fair play to Dustin Hoffman in Outbreak. He knew that no-one would accept him leaping from the helicopter onto the deck of the cargo ship, so he simply stepped across. If only more actors and directors thought like that. I remember watching Rambo (the second film) and both my friend and I uttered continuous colourful expressions of disbelief as John J's antics got more and more surreal and unlikely.