MovieChat Forums > Submerged (2016) Discussion > Pure, unadulterated...

Pure, unadulterated...


GARBAGE! I wasted fifteen minutes of my life watching this amateur trash. The story is ridiculous and boring. The director must have spent his entire time at the craft service table rather than steering this misguided imagining. There are no wide shots in this film, at least in the first fifteen minutes I could tolerate watching. The camera placement is questionable as it is never from anyone's point of view so we can't get engaged even if the story was remotely interesting. The acting is horrible which is not so much of a problem since the script is complete trash. For instance a girl in the beginning is talking with some guy at a palatial estate (I'm guessing here since there are no shots of the estate - only close ups of the actors) she states "Why do you think I went to NYU? To get away from all of this." Huh? The logic doesn't play out too well here. If she didn't want to be there, why did she come back? We don't know, and frankly don't care. Also in that same scene, some people drive up and start talking about a motorcycle that is supposedly next to them, but we never see the motorcycle! These are rookie mistakes. Mistakes that a responsible producer would have identified and replaced the 'director' the first day. As a matter of fact a competent producer would have filed this script in the round file. That's where it belongs. If this is the future of filmmaking, then the future looks very, very dim.

reply

Just curious as to how many films you've written/produced/directed?

reply

Many.

reply

1. There are no wide shots because they are inside a car. It doesn't get any plainer than that.

2. He rode up on the bike. They don't have to give at Need 4 Speed video game style rotisserie dub step fast than slow walk around because it isnt important.

reply

1. Maybe you didn't see the picture, but I was referring to the parts that were not inside the car.

2. I'm sorry that reply didn't make any sense.

reply

1. What fifteen minutes of your life are you referring to in you OP?

2. The point is, why would the bike necessarily need a big introduction scene?

reply

1. Sorry that question doesn't make sense.

2. When an actor refers to something on screen show it. Pretty simple concept.

reply

They did show the bike. Which goes back to my joke of why you need it to be the star of some dub step music video walk around. He rode up on it. There it was that's it.

It is obvious you are being argumentative and combative. So have at it, tough guy.

reply

No point in being a sycophant.

reply

Dude, I'm with you on this. There are just too many strikes against it from a film making point of view.

Unveiling my first ever signature... Now where did I set my drink?

reply

I agree.. Show whatever you are talking about on screen, important or not is irrelevant, if it's important enough to talk about, show it.

reply