I really can't decide

I think the plot was okay but he went about it wrong, so I won't say writing. The acting was terrible but I've seen worse (Manos: The Hands of Fate anyone?) I'll say the worst thing was the camera angles because, honestly, I've never seen that much jumping around on a TALKING scene (that sort of camera work should be reserved for action sequences).

I'm sure Mr. Kangas will call this "stylized" but I believe that there is a basic structure for scenes with people talking (two close-ups or over-the-shoulder shots and a wide-shot). Unless there is something to cut to, DON'T CUT!

For example, two people are talking and one of the people is angry and holding a knife. We need a few similar angles of the people (whether they are close-ups, over-the-shoulder shots, or both), a master shot, a few other angles depending on the blocking of the scene (SIMILAR angles to the angle in which they were talking) and close-ups of the knife. The cuts would go back and forth between the actors and to other angles concerning the blocking and every once in a while (after some dramatic line) there would be cuts to the knife for suspence. This would make a cleanly cut, non-distracting scene.

What Mr. Kangas did in talking scenes was constantly change the angle. That doesn't make sence to me for a two reasons; 1) it looks terrible and 2) it would require a lot of camera and lighting set-ups, which all take time. Time wasted in my opinion, people are TALKING!

Lets say that camera/lighting take five minutes to set up (which is a lie as it's usually 15-20 minutes in a REAL movie). For a simple talking scene all you really NEED are two camera angles (10 minutes). Give each actor ten minutes to do the dialogue right (20 minutes) and in all that talking scene took about 30 minutes to do.

Now lets do this the Kevin Kangas way. He would use about 10 camera angles to do this scene, that's 50 minutes right there. Now give each actor ten minutes for dialogue (20 minutes) and that adds up to an hour and ten minutes for a scene that should have taken 30 minutes. That's more than twice the amount of time it SHOULD have taken. Time is money, and he's wasting too much money on a low-budget movie.

I think that more than answered your question on my opinion, luckycharm65... And let's hope Mr. Kangas reads this for both of us... more set-up time in NEEDED places will make a better movie so we don't have to endure this crap again...

Definitely the acting.

HOW MUCH BLOOD WILL YOU SHED TO STAY ALIVE?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]