Oh, I wasn’t calling it a bad effect, I just can’t say that I find it super convincing. It’s masterful CGI, but it does have a bit of an uncanny feel to me. Had it been in a video game or an animated film I’d consider it brilliant. In a movie however, I see it as somewhat malplaced. But then again I feel that way about most CGI. If it’s subtle it’s great. If it’s something obvious, but representing something inorganic, I can stretch my suspension of disbelief. But when it’s supposed to be something organic, not to mention a human, and a famous one at that, it just feels weird to me.
As for the whole “not being used to it” thing that Bingowings mentioned, I think it goes both ways. A lot of people over 40(-ish) are so used to movies not having digital fakery that they don’t really give it much thought (and of course having grown up with wonky-animatronics, matte-paintings, etc. I get why the smooth motion of CGI seems impressive in contrast). However a lot of kids these days have grown up with CGI, so to them it’s basically just what movies are supposed to look like. Heck, that even applies to people my age (I’m in my 20’s btw) a lot of the time. So I’m not too sure if people really will be able to differentiate it more in the future. I hope so, but I doubt it.
Of course if new movies start using practical effects more, it could help make a differentiation easier as people get something to compare it to.
(Example; seeing the trailer for Jupiter Ascending after having just watched Interstellar, which used miniature effects, I suddenly got the impression that I had just watched the trailer for an animated movie. So the kind of CGI effects that impressed me 10 years ago, suddenly felt really cheap when contrasted to something more real.)
