That is pretty amazing, especially for a student film.
Some questions, for people with more knowledge about this than I: when I watch something like this (a piece or sequence that's heavily CGIed), it always reduces my suspension of disbelief. In a movie like one of the Star Wars prequels, where a lot of the vehicles, action setpieces, and backgrounds were exclusively CGI, it's really bad--takes me out of the story. A movie like "300" or "Sin City," on the other hand, looks more artistic--the CGI is not intended to be realistic. To me, it is a part of the story, helping to color the vision of director and DP.
If I look at the original Star Wars films, the ones with motion control flight sequences, matte paintings for sweeping backgrounds, etc., the universe looks more realistic to me. I'm wondering 1) if the current CGI state-of-the-art doesn't have the ability to get across the "uncanny valley" of looking just unrealistic enough to be distracting, 2) if the technology will get to a place where #1 isn't a concern for a viewer like me, and 3) if some of the older techniques, while, in my understanding are now more expensive than CGI, might still have a place to maintain the illusion of a more believable reality.
Thoughts?