Speical Effects

[fgadmin]

felstein — 14 years ago(March 14, 2012 01:21 PM)

I agree. Still impressive.

[fgadmin]

westal_sage — 13 years ago(September 13, 2012 01:35 AM)

Agreed. Very well done!

[fgadmin]

ElectricWarlock — 13 years ago(October 15, 2012 11:04 AM)

I agree. Today they would just use CGI objects moving around the room and it would look so fake. The effects in this movie actually looked real.
Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

[fgadmin]

DracTarashV — 12 years ago(June 18, 2013 06:51 PM)

If you think the effects look great now, just imagine how mind-blowing they were
back then.
They hold up tremendously.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

[fgadmin]

snickz — 11 years ago(October 14, 2014 05:33 PM)

I agree. I didn't expect them to be as good as they were.

[fgadmin]

cybopath — 11 years ago(October 25, 2014 02:24 PM)

1930's gave us this, Jack Pierce's Frankenstein and Willis O'Brien's King Kong. Many of these techniques didn't change until the 90's only refined.
They are pretty impressive especially as some movies made in the 50's and 70's had some shockingly poor effects.

[fgadmin]

FridayOnElmStreet — 10 years ago(May 25, 2015 03:32 AM)

I fully agree.

[fgadmin]

Jamie170 — 10 years ago(June 06, 2015 10:04 AM)

Agreed, I could not get over how good they looked when I first watched the film knowing the film was 80 years old. It is my favourite of the Universal Horror series.

[fgadmin]

MayoGalway — 9 years ago(August 26, 2016 09:33 PM)

Checkout the trivia pg. It tells of the first(?) "green screen", only it's black. Go.

[fgadmin]

ronricho-337-128165 — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 01:34 PM)

It isn't just that the FX are so good its a good movie in every way. I'm not sure this could be redone and made better. Of course having Claude Rains as the lead certainly doesn't hurt any.

[fgadmin]

AnthonyRocks — 4 years ago(December 09, 2021 05:18 PM)

"I was really surprised how good they were for a 1930s movie."
———————————–
Agreed, They were very impressive.