Amended. Both Clerks and Clerks II for the same reasons listed above.whitemidget said:Clerks. Had a microbudget, and the only special effect was having Scott Mosier yell at himself during the hockey scene. The movie's always had a soft spot in my heart, as I was 13 or something when I first saw it. It's been one of the big developing movies of my adolescence.
no... I never forget...oddresin said:EDIT: forget this post
It would be great for a movie to have both, it's just that I see so many movies where they have compromised a good story for better CGI.PurpleRain said:Why compromise? Why not have both? CGI can be a way to tell a story. What if the story was to be set on the back of a snake flying through space, Special Effect are most definitly needed.
Fight Club? Yeah, interestingly enough, Edward Norton actually DID shoot himself through the face.Samurai Goomba said:Ong Bak (seconded), Se7en (there's a lot of costume/mannequin stuff, but actual CGI? I don't remember any), The Usual Suspects (stuff gets set on fire, that's about it), Pulp Fiction (There's... A cartoon square) and maybe Fight Club (I say maybe because some extremely subtle CGI may have been worked into the film in single frames or something just to mess with my head. It's that kind of movie.)
Actually, most Tarantino movies. Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, True Romance (he wrote the script), Reservoir Dogs... I think Kill Bill is about the only movie(s) of his that might have CGI special effects. It has anime, so I guess maybe that counts. I think Death Proof has some CGI. It's still great, though.
^^^^^^^^^^This times infinity.^^^^^^^^^^Deef said:My favorite is the Shawshank Redemption, I never noticed a special effect, but it was one of the best movies I'd ever seen.