Personally, I liked the opening sequence where the girl gets stabbed and then takes forever to actually die, (and then having it turn out to be a scene from a movie that was being shot) -- However, when you think about it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because supposedly she was just supposed to be stabbed and die -- and yet, they just keep the camera rolling.
Doesn't the director know the Russian word for "cut"?
Good point, letting her rattle around doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Aside from that, the opening scene reminded me of the opening scene from De Palma's Blow Out -- which in turn was aping Hitchcock, particularly Rear Window.
It makes sense if he is a new director - which he seemed to be - because he didn't understand how long it took to reset the scene.
shareGranted, it "makes sense" in the sense that it's not necessarily a plot hole or anything... I just found it interesting that he waited until after she had completely trashed the set before chewing her out for trashing the set.
It's sorta reminded me of one of those old slapstick movies (eg. Laurel and Hardy) where two parties are taking turns at revenge, and in each instance, they stand there as the other party goes through some elaborate ritual, for example, deliberately removing the other person's hat and pouring in various food substances before deliberately placing the hat back on the other person's head... all the while the victim doesn't lift a finger to stop them.
Ha. That is a good analogy (or is it simile). It is a little akward... but it certainly doesn't ruin the movie for me.
shareIt obviously was to make the viewer think the scene might be 'real' at first. And then it just became comical, entertaining and worthwhile to most of the people on set.
share