It bothered me the whole film that it clearly was not shot in the US. Guess it could fool Danish fans but not this American. And the sets sucked-the town looked so obviously fake. Especially since the location was wrong. About what you'd expect, I guess, from a Western made by Danes. I spent most of the film guessing where it was actually shot. Probably not what the film makers intended.
sharejames19,
"I spent most of the film guessing where it was actually shot. Probably not what the film makers intended."?
It sounds almost like you wasted your own time on purpose so you could point this out. True, that was a flaw, but it sure seems a minor flaw easily overcome by doing what most all movies require us to do: giving the benefit of the doubt and indulging (even over-looking) imperfections. Glaring flaws or a generally bad quality movie seems better reason for a negative comment. Really, I'm reacting more to that type of comment than your specific complaint - some commentators (not you) seem to lecture the rest of us as if they know-it-all about movie-making and consider it easily done, so easily nit-picked.
Anyway, most important is whether you enjoyed it? (If not, guessing it was not solely because of the location?)
They spent the budget on the actors and not the scenes. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Heck you could tell parts of jaws was a pool with painted cloud wallpaper, the water went from crystal blue to brown lake water to green in three shots and people give it a pass. It's acting, not a huge deal.
shareI'm just wondering that if you go and see a movie that takes place in e.g. Mars, do you just over-analyze the shooting locations and sets and cannot enjoy the movie at all in those cases as well?
It's not that uncommon for American-made pure Hollywood movies to be filmed in a bit confusing locations either. There are multitude of possible reasons varying from costs (and tax incentives) to the current state of e.g. nature, surroundings, buildings, castles, depending on the movie.
This shouldn't be a big deal if the sets don't cause any concrete problems or issues, of which you mention none. Your problem is that it's not "clearly" filmed in the US, but that's not specific on what's the problem there. And for the sets / towns looking fake... this wasn't a high budget film (10,5M). There are films filmed in the US of A that have sets that look fake, and usually they fit well into that budget range.
Or let's put it the other way around: American Sniper was filmed in Morocco. Lone Survivor was filmed in New Mexico, USA. Hurt Locker was filmed in Canada and Jordan.
Yea, it's a stupid post by OP. Most films that are to take place in a city or state somewhere is actually filmed elsewhere . Most films that are to take place in a mountainous area or say the backwoods of West Virginia are shot in Canada. Pretty much most of Ridley Scott's films are shot in Morocco and in the same locations, just sets are re done (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down,Body of lies ) . Almost all films except ones that you can't get away with because of specific land marks or stuff like that are filmed somewhere other than it's intentional place.
In the case for this movie (which I didn't happen to think was anything special) it was credited in the beginning that it was FilmDanish (or whatever they called it) . That pretty much guaranteed that it wasn't a western in the USA. Most westerns back in the day , as in Clint Eastwood case , im sure you know were filmed in Italy (hence Spaghetti Westerns). Im sorry you spent the whole film considering where it was shot when you could have went to locations on IMDb and would have seen it. I also am sorry that you may have paid to see this lol. Eva Green is my favorite and I saw it on Showtime so that's my excuse lol. Movie is about a 5.8 , just MHO . The last good western that I could think of was 3:10 to Yuma, and the remake of True Grit.
THERES NO ROOM IN MY CIRCUS TENT FOR YOU !!!!
THERES NO ROOM IN MY CIRCUS TENT FOR YOU !!!!
OP is right on one thing.. The attempt to make a Western set was pretty piss poor lol. Maybe a better spot location person would have helped or they could have put more money into the set design. It is really bad lol. I have to agree that it is really bad and I'll bet actors like Jeffrey Dean Morgan , whom has done stuff in the states would tell you that 100% . The one thing I didn't do was let it really bother me or make me wonder the whole time. There was a lot more that I thought made this film very sub-par. The set design didn't help its cause. If your going to make a film in a part of the world that is supposed to look like somewhere else , at least make it look plausible or realistic. The movies I mention from Ridley Scott as well as the movies the poster above me said at least looked realistic for what the film was supposed to be going for lol. That's it from me on this one ..
THERES NO ROOM IN MY CIRCUS TENT FOR YOU. !!!!
It was filmed in South Africa. The 'buttes' are obviously faked, pasted on post production I suspect.
shareYeah, the buttes kinda looked like Monument Valley. Otherwise I don't see where the scenery "clearly" did not look like the American west. Many places in the west are relatively flat, arid and dusty.
shareAnd?
shareDo you not realize that most movies are filmed in lots of countries because of the cost?
shareIt didn't look that bad to me.
No worse that the spaghetti westerns filmed in Spain by Italian directors.
There are deserts and buttes in South Africa so they didn't have to "fake" that.
Even the town looked "realistic" compared to what I have seen in dozens of other films, including those in the United States.
Bad films are a crime against humanity.
http://movieplotholes.com/message-board.html
You probably didn't like "the good, the bad and the ugly" as well because it was filmed in Spain. Yet...
share