Bad CGI Orgies

In this category, we explore films that are absolutely smothered in rancid special effects. Amazingly, the directors and producers of these films apparently decided to pile on as much CGI as possible, whether they looked like quality special effects or not, like a crazed butcher who throws slice after slice of bologna on a grinder in hopes that it will somehow taste better. Here are three films that caused some serious indigestion:

Hulk (2003)

See if you can figure this one out. Ang Lee, the Academy Award-winning director, makes a string of well-respected and critically-acclaimed dramas during the 1990s, such as "The Ice Storm" and "Sense and Sensibility." The he makes the stellar "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," which boasts some of the best martial arts and visuals effects ever committed to film. How does he follow it up? By making "Hulk," one of the worst comic book adaptations ever made. Many critics pointed the finger at the CGI-created Hulk, which looked laughably puffy and whose movements seemed fake. Yes, the Hulk was bad but in truth the effects were terrible throughout the entire movie, save a couple scenes during the Mojave Desert battle. The genetically-engineered dogs? Comically bad. Nick Nolte's energy monster? Even worse. Lee himself admitted before the movie was released that he was unhappy with the CGI-created superhero, but for whatever reason even after the imagery was polished up, the effects still didn't mesh. They would have been better off just sticking with Lou Ferrigno. The result was still a cartoonish, overblown orgy of poor special effects. If they can make Gollum look like a real character, then why not the Hulk?

The not-so incredible CGI "Hulk"

The Haunting (1999)

Director Jan De Bont burst on to the Hollywood scene in 1984 with "Speed," and then followed it up with another blockbuster called "Twister" in 1996, which has some of the most impressive special effects ever produced at that time (in fact, special effects were all "Twister" really was, but that's another story). So De Bont really can't claim ignorance in the ways of CGI as an excuse for his third film, a remake of the horror classic "The Haunting." Woops. "The Haunting" was almost universally panned for exceptionally bad CGI and quickly became a prime example of how truly un-scary special effects can be in horror flicks. It also featured one of the most unintentionally funny scenes ever filmed - when Owen Wilson gets his head taken off, I nearly exploded in laughter. Anyway, from the collapsing staircase to the various parts of the haunted house that come alive, the heavy-handed CGI (indeed, one scene involves a preposterous-looking giant hand that emerges from a garden fountain) is overwhelming. I can only imagine the puzzled looks on the producers' faces when De Bont asked them to build a giant hand that resembled the Hamburger Helper. Dreamworks should have taken a cue from Dr. Evil and said: "How 'bout no, you crazy Dutch bastard!"

Van Helsing (2004)

Watching this movie was like having two-day old moo shu and three Suffering Bastards at the Chinese restaurant down the street - an utterly unforgiving and agonizing experience. It was apparent from the movie's trailer that "Van Helsing" was going to have a lot of campy, low-quality CGI. But nothing could prepare any viewer for the relentless and merciless assault of the actual film. Essentially, it's a B-movie soaking in poor effects that tries to pass itself off as a big-budget blockbuster. The CGI-enhanced stunts and action sequences are utterly boring and the computer animation of the film's monsters is completely uninspired and without originality. It's clear that the producers of the film weren't aiming for silly effects, so "Van Helsing" cannot be considered as a member of the "it's so bad, it's good" club. The worst part of the movie is undoubtedly the movie's climax, which involves a final battle between Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing, who turns into a werewolf, and Dracula, who turns into a giant vampire bat. It's no surprise that a lot of critics panned the movie because of its obsession with dull CGI. But it is amazing that more than 20 years after the remarkable non-CGI effects of "An American Werewolf in London," movies like "Van Helsing" spend more money, more time and more effort to create infinitely less convincing and enthralling creates that neither scare or nor excite audiences.

The rather putrid-looking special effects of "Van Helsing"