I just checked out the awards this film has collected and was stunned. Am I the only one who thought the visuals were really well below average?? I found this movie extremely dull and cheap to the point where it makes you wanna switch it off. It looks like someone forgot to put the finishing touches on everything from the story to the effects etc. Sorry this can't pass for a good or asthetic movie.
What a poor effort.
Well I mean you have all the right in the world to feel bad about the movie. I watched it now the third time and the visuals are still stunning and the story telling has quite a pace - at least for me.
Even I knew all the twists of the story, it was still very entertaining for me and made a good story.
What you say about cheap, well there are some moments when you feel that this is not a movie it is more a TV production - where it really comes from, I believe.
Well, personally I understand what you are talking about but on the other hand, this movie is - IMO - truly better in storytelling and visuals than many others and personally I found the acting very good in this movie.
I don't know what kind of measures you apply to this movie but for me it is quite decent but I understand your point of view.
I think it's not that the movie is "cheap", it's more that the movie went for a specific style, and the style may not be for everyone.
I found some scenes amazing while some others annoyed me. So it is with movies...
"it's more that the movie went for a specific style, and the style may not be for everyone."
I'm watching it now and see what you mean. As still images I think some of it is quite breathtaking, but some of it is really giving me a headache (which is why I paused it about 20 minutes in and decided to check in here and see what people thought). The overuse of fisheye lenses (do they use any lenses in this that don't distort perspective?), the really fast cuts (lots of 1 and 2 second cuts), and the cuts to extreme close-ups, I am finding all quite annoying. I hope it settles down as the movie progesses or I'm going to have to get some more aspirin.
-Mike
"Let's make some art!"
well, I'm going to see this movie more out of curiosity then anything else. Mostly because I read in Special Effects an oral history by Pascal Pinteau that this is supposed to be the worlds first feature length movie shot on high definition video... maybe that's why you feel it seems cheap...
shareHollywood wouldn't know cool if they were naked at the North Pole. Pitof directed this film three years before he directed Catwoman, and yet they didn't allow this obviously superior film to enter the U.S.A., but they went all out on advertisement with that piece of crap Halle Berry movie. Then, the movie bombs, and all of their hopes of making a franchise with a silly DC Comics/Warner Bros. comic book character goes up in smoke. Good. That's what they get. It only proves that Hollywood wouldn't know a good movie if their lives depended on it.
shareJust saw this flick 10 minutes ago, it is different- and it absolutely rocks. and yes, hollywood s%cks!
What are all these innocents doing bystanding?
The fact that Catwoman sucks doesn't change the fact that this isn't a great movie. Technically it's terrible - so badly filmed and edited that it's hard to watch without getting a headache. I couldn't watch any more of it....
shareHmm, getting this from the library, I'm interested in what I'll find.
shareI thought this movie looked amazing.. Sometimes w/ visual effects "realistic" doesn't always mean good. Occasionally it's fun to see visual effects that don't look realistic, but have a certain stylization that fits well with the rest of the film, and work well on their own. For me this film was very succesful at this... The reason I think it looked cheap to you, is the fact that, yeah the visual effects were more hyper-real than photoreal, but more importantly it was shot on HD rather than film. This tends to give a more "video" feel, but for me, it created an super detailed visceral look that worked well... To be quite frank, the direction is a bit... well.. sloppy.. but all in all a film w/ a very cohesive and intersting look and feel.. And yeah, 1000x better than Catwoman..
share[deleted]
I absolutely loved some of the optical illusions in the floor patterns. Really crazy looking.
shareI think what leaves the impression of cheapness is the framerate at which they shot the movie (maybe?). It seems slightly higher than the usual studio production...
shareI agree completely and it has nothing to do with budget etc. - I only watched the first 10 minutes of the film because the cinematography is so bad I refused to continue watching. The way the film is shot - everything from camera angles to continuity between shots is so bad it feels like it's made by someone completely clueless to filmmaking. Maybe it gets better as the film goes along, I dunno - but to me it was so bad I didn't want to continue watching - and I am not someone who gets turned off by effects being "cheap" so that wasnt even the issue for me.
shareYou made it longer than me. I had to turn it off after 8 minutes. I agree with you. I disliked the camera movements, the frenetic editing, the fish-eye lenses, and the unnecessary closeups. I just couldn't focus my eyes to this. Plus, I didn't care for the special effects. If they cut out the frenetic editing, the fish eye, the weird camera movements, and the close-ups, and tried harder with the special effects, this movie could have been turned into an interesting television show.
shareCGI: 9
Story: 6.6
Cinematograhy: 10
Editing: 8
Martial arts: 6
Art direction: 9
Gerard Depardieu's penis nose: 4
Music: 6.8