I watched the first one three times. It was so immersing. This one was far from that, I would never want to see it again.
Sometimes the CGI was so disappointing, I see better quality in games I play on my PC with a 5 years old graphic card. (GTX1080).
On the other hand, sometimes the exaggerated sharpness stole the cinema feeling. It didn't help you in immersing into the buzz of the story, it was alienating you instead. Sometimes the camera-handling, (too many yanking of the camera that supposed to give the feeling of being present on site - but failed doing that) and sharpness of the picture gave the feeling of a cheap TV program with the lowest possible budget. Movie makers should refuse to use this technology, it is a bad direction to go. (It was the worst in the latter parts of the movie.) The movie also had some parts where it was just foolishly unreal in physics: like when the boats were bouncing on waves, and the actors in them were almost steady.
The creatures in the movie sometimes seemed "too much". It was like when someone with a bad taste uses the full spectrum of opportunities in MS PowerPoint in a single presentation. For example, why those big sea creatures should have a bigger and a smaller eye? Only because it seemed a good idea to the visual designer. If there is something that has such a role in the visual universe of the movie, that should be explained, should have a reason to be there, I think.
I wasn't sure about the actor who played Spider. Sometimes it seemed very bad acting, sometimes quite good.
And finally: by the end of the movie it was obvious, the "way of water" means much more that it meant in the story: movies this long need a bathroom break, because it was painful to be there this long without it.
Sometimes the CGI was so disappointing, I see better quality in games I play on my PC with a 5 years old graphic card. (GTX1080).
On the other hand, sometimes the exaggerated sharpness stole the cinema feeling. It didn't help you in immersing into the buzz of the story, it was alienating you instead. Sometimes the camera-handling, (too many yanking of the camera that supposed to give the feeling of being present on site - but failed doing that) and sharpness of the picture gave the feeling of a cheap TV program with the lowest possible budget. Movie makers should refuse to use this technology, it is a bad direction to go. (It was the worst in the latter parts of the movie.) The movie also had some parts where it was just foolishly unreal in physics: like when the boats were bouncing on waves, and the actors in them were almost steady.
The creatures in the movie sometimes seemed "too much". It was like when someone with a bad taste uses the full spectrum of opportunities in MS PowerPoint in a single presentation. For example, why those big sea creatures should have a bigger and a smaller eye? Only because it seemed a good idea to the visual designer. If there is something that has such a role in the visual universe of the movie, that should be explained, should have a reason to be there, I think.
I wasn't sure about the actor who played Spider. Sometimes it seemed very bad acting, sometimes quite good.
And finally: by the end of the movie it was obvious, the "way of water" means much more that it meant in the story: movies this long need a bathroom break, because it was painful to be there this long without it.