I have to agree, the film was well-written, no doubt, but the way it was shot really put me off. The camera angles and editing chosen by the director were far too basic, and it looked very much like a middle-school film project. It was all very basic shots, generally bad lighting (not by choice, but because the scenes were poorly lit), and mostly back-and-forth cutting... there wasn't anything daring or unique. It was like watching an interview on your local news channel- just basic, cheap camera set-ups.
As for someone else who said "You do better", well I'm in college studying film and video production, and I can safely say that most of the people in the video/film department could do a much better job shooting and editing. I've seen students turn in projects shot on cheap school HD-camcorders using rented-out lighting equipment from the school that had Hollywood-quality lighting and camera movement. (Although at the same time, I've seen a few students turn in projects that looked abysmal.) It's all a matter of how you use the equipment.
I'm not a hater, and I'm not knocking the film, but I seriously felt it could have used a different director. It was a solid fan-film, and the story was great, but the weak visuals did drop this a few points, in addition to a few goofy moments of acting. I'd give this a very solid 7 out of 10.
And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?
reply
share