The cinematography ruined this film for me (still enjoyed it none the less). The lighting was so pisspoor dark. The edits and camera work left much to be desired. Hopefully they'll do a better job if they make a sequel.
shareI agree...I stopped watching it because I couldnt tell what was happening. It was so dark and the camera was so fast and shakey whenever there was any kind of action. I had to keep rewinding it to try to see what happened; then I gave up and stopped watching.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The light was fine.
I agree with the editing though. The opening attack was cut way too fast.
Why quote other people when I like the sound of my own voice?
I have to agree. I guess I can kinda see how the editing could be a little confusing, but not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be. My first time watching it, I had no problem following anything.
Likewise, I was watching it with a friend another time and he kept asking what just happened. Even if you don't see the little kid's legs dangling, I would think Tuffy's horrified scream would at least be a hint.
I just finished it... it wasn't that anything major was hard to pinpoint on screen, but more than a few bits were disorienting due to the editing. It didn't help that the framing was ALSO cut on top of the spastic parts. But that's a minor complaint - and my only one!
shareFor me it was the jokes, I have no problem with horror and comedy, I just didn't find this movie funny.
shareI was distracted not as much by the lack of light, but by the strange light coming from strange places. The editing was unusual in part to manufacture a look and in part to cover the lack of budget and skills (kind of like the editing in the Bourne series tries to make up for Damon's lack of fight skills).
The Feast bent over backwards to be "artful" for art's sake. Ok, distinctive look. Won't be duplicated or copied (except by John for sequels). For good reason.
All in all, Feast seems to be a fitting end to Project Green Light effort.
[deleted]
Whenever you see the shake-y camera effect and quick edits, they are usually trying to cover up the poor monster effects.
I really hate that effect in movies and I believe that started with Gladiator's fight scenes.
But either way, this movie was fun as hell and hilarious..
The action scenes were so awful. Like a goofy cartoon or something.
shareIn a remarkably similar discussion thread a poster has declared the same cinematography to be Oscar-worthy. Given that the movie is set almost entirely at night, in a poorly-lit bar, I thought the filmmakers' lighting choices were sensible. The jumpy, rapid editing and use of handheld cameras were an effective means of presenting scenes that might be too gory, too objectionable, or just too obvious. The use of high-definition cameras at inappropriate times seems deliberate, part of the comedic interpretation of the film. On the whole, I thought it was not Oscar-worthy. But I did not think it detracted from the film.
share